Kyle Rak worked as a Jones Act seaman for C-Innovation, L.L.C. (“C-I”). On October 10, 2022, everything changed. According to Rak, his superintendent suddenly shoved him to the ground without warning. The incident left him injured and shocked.
The next day, things got worse. C-I terminated Rak’s employment and, as he claimed, left him stranded in a dangerous jurisdiction. Feeling abandoned and wronged, Rak decided to act. He filed a lawsuit against C-I, Island Ventures 6, L.L.C., and Galliano Marine Services International, L.L.C. He brought several claims, negligence, unseaworthiness, maintenance and cure, retaliatory discharge, and wrongful termination, under general maritime law and the Jones Act.
To support his case, Rak hired Joseph R. Bridges as an expert witness. Bridges focused on the topic of seafarer abandonment. He discussed maritime customs, International Maritime Organization (“IMO”) guidelines, and the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006. In his view, the Defendants failed to meet industry standards.
However, the Defendants pushed back. They argued that Bridges’s opinions crossed the line into legal conclusions. In their view, his testimony stepped into the jury’s territory and should have been excluded.
Maritime Safety Expert Witness
Joseph R. Bridges is a 50-year veteran of the maritime industry, having sailed in various positions from Graduate Trainee to Ship’s Master. His seagoing career consisted of sailing on Container, Offshore Tugs,
Tankers, Multi-Purpose and Roll On-Roll Off vessels.
Discussion by the Court
The Court reviewed Defendants’ motion to exclude expert testimony from Joseph R. Bridges. Defendants did not dispute his qualifications. Instead, they challenged the scope and foundation of his opinions.
First, the Court examined Bridges’ use of language. He described Defendants’ conduct as “outrageous,” “callous,” and “ethically wrong.” The Court found this terminology inflammatory and unnecessary. It concluded that such statements were personal opinions, not expert analysis. The Court excluded those portions of testimony.
Next, the Court addressed Bridges’ opinions on maritime customs. He discussed seafarer abandonment and referenced IMO guidelines and the Maritime Labour Convention. Though not binding law, the Court recognized these sources as respected in the maritime field. It allowed Bridges to testify on these industry standards.
Then, the Court turned to opinions that lacked factual support. Bridges failed to disclose the facts or assumptions he used. He also omitted exhibits or data. The Court ruled these opinions inadmissible under Rule 702 and Rule 26.
Finally, the Court noted that Bridges made credibility judgments. He accepted one side’s version of events without question. The Court ruled that such determinations belong to the jury, not the expert. It excluded those opinions as well.
Held
The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiff’s expert Joseph R. Bridges.
Key Takeaway:
The Court allowed Joseph R. Bridges to testify about maritime industry standards and seafarer abandonment but excluded his opinions that were inflammatory, unsupported, or based on credibility judgments. Expert witnesses must rely on disclosed facts and avoid legal conclusions or emotional language that invades the jury’s role.
Case Details
| Case Caption: | Rak v. C-Innovation, L.L.C. |
| Docket Number: | 2:23cv619 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana |
| Order Date: | July 10, 2025 |
Leave a Reply