Prescod

MEMORANDUM *

In this memorandum disposition, we decide the defendants’ appeal and the plaintiffs’ cross-appeal of the district court’s award of damages. 1 We have examined the parties’ contentions concerning the district court’s calculation of Neischer’s lost income and its damages award, and find no reversible error, assuming that Neischer’s negligence did not contribute toward her death. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recount only those relevant to our analysis.

1. Defendants’ citation of Maheu v. Hughes Tool Co., 569 F.2d 459 (9th Cir.1977), is inapposite, as Maheu does not forbid attribution of lost income based on credible testimony alone. In that case, it was the plaintiff whose testimony purportedly supported the earnings determination. The plaintiff, however, “was thoroughly and convincingly impeached,” and his future earnings were therefore deemed to be “impermissibly conjectural.” Id. at 472, 475 . The present case involves no speculation about future income, only a debate over the credibility of the Preseods’ testimony as a “factual basis” for the lost in *157 come calculation. See id. at 476 . The substantial evidence standard for damages awards…