Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of LouisianaJurisdiction: FederalCase Name: Rhodes v. Genesis Marine, LLC of Del.Citation: 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120614
Facts
The plaintiff was injured while working as a marine electrician for the defendant. The plaintiff filed negligence and vessel negligence suit against the defendant and retained a marine engineering expert witness to opine on liability in the case. The defendant filed a motion to exclude the opinion of plaintiff’s marine engineering expert arguing that the expert’s testimony was not reliable, as the expert referenced OSHA regulations and not the U.S. Coast Guard regulations in reaching his conclusions. The defendant also claimed that the expert’s report was not based on sufficient facts or data as the expert failed to consider any depositions, including that of the plaintiff, in formulating his conclusory opinions. The plaintiff opposed the motion to exclude the opinion of the expert.
Court’s Discussions
The defendant argued that the engineering expert’s report was unreliable, suggesting that he improperly applied OSHA regulations to the United States Coast Guard inspected barge. The plaintiff argued that even if OSHA regulations do not apply to Coast Guard inspected vessels, the regulations can still be followed as a guide.
The court found that OSHA may enforce its regulations against employers of non-seamen (such as the plaintiff in this case) aboard inspected vessels. Thus, the expert was permitted to testify that certain conditions on the barge in question violated OSHA regulations.
The court held that the engineering expert could not express an opinion that the defendant’s failure to include a hinged hatch cover, in violation of OSHA regulations, constitutes negligence per se. However, the expert was permitted to testify that the failure to provide a hinged hatch cover violated OSHA regulations and that the barge’s conduct in failing to provide a hinged hatch cover fell below the required standard of care.
The defendant sought to exclude the expert’s testimony that “the hatch cover design was defective, unreasonably dangerous, and rendered the vessel unfit for service because it lacked a hinge.” The defendant argued that this report was unreliable because the expert failed to consider any depositions, including that of the plaintiff, in formulating his conclusory opinions.
The plaintiff argued that the expert performed an inspection of the barge aboard which the plaintiff was injured and the expert report contained photographs of the unhinged hatch cover in question, which were obtained during this inspection. Therefore, the plaintiff argued that the engineering expert’s opinions were based on sufficient data as well as relevant educational background, experience, training, and expertise.
Held
The court concluded that the defendant’s criticisms went to the weight of engineering expert’s testimony, and not to its admissibility. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion in limine was denied.
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.
