Tilden David Nesmith v. Texaco, Inc., Pool Offshore Co. v. Tidex, Inc., 727 F.2d 497 (5th Cir. 1984). · Go Syfert
Tilden David Nesmith v. Texaco, Inc., Pool Offshore Co. v. Tidex, Inc., 727 F.2d 497 (5th Cir. 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Raymond Flanks v. The City of New Orleans et al. (laed, 2025-12-01)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Raymond Flanks v. The City of New Orleans et al.
E.D. La. · 2025 · confidence medium
Barge Line, L.L.C., No. 23-30494, 2025 WL 2945812 , at *3 (5th Cir. Oct. 17, 2025) (citing Nesmith v. Texaco, Inc., 727 F.2d 497, 498 (5th Cir. 1984)). 82 Id. (quoting Culver II, 722 F.2d at 120 ). not a maritime personal injury case and (2) Bradley is trying to establish Plaintiff’s lost past wages due to his allegedly wrongful incarceration, not future lost wages due to a personal injury.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vaughn v. American Cml Barge Line
5th Cir. · 2025 · confidence medium
Our circuit’s method for determining future wage loss is derived from Culver v. Slater Boat Co. (Culver II).14 In that en banc decision, we stated: The calculation of damages suffered either by a person whose personal injuries will result in extended future disability or by the representatives of a deceased person involves four steps: estimating the loss of work life resulting from the injury or death, calculating the lost income stream, computing the total damage, and discounting that amount to its present value.15 Under Culver II, adjusting for inflation must occur after a fact-finder calc…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Tilden David NESMITH, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
TEXACO, INC., Et Al, Defendants; Pool Offshore Company, Defendant-Appellee, v. Tidex, Inc., Defendant-Appellant
80-3668.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Mar 23, 1984.
727 F.2d 497
Laborde & Lafargue, Cliffe E. Laborde, III, Marksville, La., for defendant-appellant., Domengeaux & Wright, Bob F. Wright, Lafayette, La., for Nesmith., Richard A. Cozad, Michael L. McAlpine, New Orleans, La., for Pool Co. and Pool Offshore., Anthony D. Moroux, Lafayette, La., for Nesmith.
Johnson, Per Curiam, Reavley.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

We delayed consideration of this case pending decision en banc of Culver v. Slater Boat Co., 644 F.2d 460 (5th Cir.1981). Following the en banc decision in Culver, 688 F.2d 280 (5th Cir.1982) (en banc) (Culver I), the Supreme Court decided Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Pfeifer,-- U.S. --, 103 S.Ct. 2541, 76 L.Ed.2d 768 (1983). Prompted by the Pfeifer opinion, this Court reconsidered Culver I on petition for rehearing. Culver v. Slater Boat Co., 722 F.2d 114 (5th Cir.1983) (en banc) (Culver II). In light of Culver II this Court vacates the damage award and remands for reassessment of damages. In calculating plaintiff’s award, the district court applied a 6% inflation factor [2] and an 8% discount rate to plaintiff’s estimated lost earnings. The en banc Court in Culver II opted for the below-market-discount method. This approach does not allow for consideration of inflationary factors when calculating plaintiff’s lost stream of future earnings. Instead, the trier of fact estimates the wage increases the plaintiff would have received each year as a result of individual and societal factors (excepting price inflation), e.g., personal merit and experience. The resulting income stream is then discounted by a below-market discount rate.

On remand the district court, 491 F.Supp. 561, may hear any further evidence it deems necessary pursuant to Culver II in order to recalculate plaintiff’s damage award. The court is directed to apply the principles of Culver II in adopting the appropriate discount rate. The remainder of the appeal presents no issues requiring written disposition. Accordingly, the judgment of liability against the defendants is affirmed.

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED.

2

. The court estimated that plaintiff’s annual lost wages equalled $24,600 in 1980 dollars and then assumed a 6% inflation rate so that his annual lost wages at the end of his work life in 2013 amounted to $150,000. After discounting, the court applied a 15% rate to adjust the award for income taxes.