Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of LouisianaJurisdiction: FederalCase Name: Dean v. Sea Supply, Inc.Citation: 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222640
The plaintiff was captain of the Jessica Elizabeth, a vessel owned, operated, and crewed by the defendant, Sea Supply, Inc. While on board the vessel, the plaintiff slipped and fell suffering injuries to his back and neck. The plaintiff alleged that his injuries were caused by the defendant’s negligence and breach of duty to provide a seaworthy vessel, and further alleged that the defendant was liable for his injuries under the Jones Act. The defendants sought to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s maritime liability expert.
The Maritime Expert
The plaintiff’s expert witness was a maritime consultant with 25 years of experience in maritime navigation, bridge safety, navigation training, towing, line handling, safe lifting, anchoring, fire fighting, stability and damage control, and vessel inspection/auditing for navigation and pollution prevention. The expert graduated from the United States Coast Guard Academy, and his career with the Coast Guard included tours as Deck Watch Officer, Deck Department Head, Navigator, Weapons Department Head, Tactical Action Officer, Navigation Safety Training Team Leader, and Commanding Officer aboard various vessels.
Court Discussion
The defendant argued that the expert’s proposed testimony and report did not provide any technical, scientific, or other specialized knowledge that would help the court understand the evidence.
The defendant further argued that the expert’s opinions were not proper as they referenced safety policies that were not relevant to the case.The defendants argued that in order to support his statement that slip-and-fall incidents commonly caused injuries, the expert made reference to the safety manuals of other companies.
The defendant further contended that the maritime expert’s report made legal determinations as to federal regulations and Coast Guard authorities. The defendant asserted that it was not proper for an expert to give a legal opinion, and that his opinions should therefore be excluded. The plaintiff opposed the defendant’s contentions submitting that the purpose of the testimony was to demonstrate that the defendant failed to perform its duty towards the vessel’s employees. The plaintiff further asserted that the maritime expert’s opinion was based on his inspection of the vessel in question.
Held
The court denied the defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s maritime expert.
The court found that the plaintiff’s maritime expert was sufficiently qualified as per his education and experience to offer testimony as an expert. His opinions were rendered using the appropriate methodology. The court further found that the report’s references to federal regulations and coast guard regulations were proper as evidence of possible negligence on the part of the defendant.
About the author
Zach Barreto
Zach Barreto is a distinguished professional in the legal industry, currently serving as the Senior Vice President of Research at the Expert Institute. With a deep understanding of a broad range of legal practice areas, Zach's expertise encompasses personal injury, medical malpractice, mass torts, defective products, and many other sectors. His skills are particularly evident in handling complex litigation matters, including high-profile cases like the Opioids litigation, NFL Concussion Litigation, California Wildfires, 3M earplugs, Elmiron, Transvaginal Mesh, NFL Concussion Litigation, Roundup, Camp Lejeune, Hernia Mesh, IVC filters, Paraquat, Paragard, Talcum Powder, Zantac, and many others.
Under his leadership, the Expert Institute’s research team has expanded impressively from a single member to a robust team of 100 professionals over the last decade. This growth reflects his ability to navigate the intricate and demanding landscape of legal research and expert recruitment effectively. Zach has been instrumental in working on nationally significant litigation matters, including cases involving pharmaceuticals, medical devices, toxic chemical exposure, and wrongful death, among others.
At the Expert Institute, Zach is responsible for managing all aspects of the research department and developing strategic institutional relationships. He plays a key role in equipping attorneys for success through expert consulting, case management, strategic research, and expert due diligence provided by the Institute’s cloud-based legal services platform, Expert iQ.
Educationally, Zach holds a Bachelor's degree in Political Science and European History from Vanderbilt University.
