Plaintiff Kevin McCray worked as a longshoreman for his employer, Houston Terminal LLC, on the MV Maersk Tennessee. The MV Maersk Tennessee, a container ship, was owned and operated by Defendant Maersk Line Limited.
On February 28, 2023, McCray worked in Bay 30 with his co-worker, Manuel Maldonado, for about 1.5 to 2 hours. McCray used the vessel’s common area walkways, which had metal gratings for access to the space below. Around 4:00 PM, while standing on the metal grating, it suddenly gave way beneath him. McCray fell into the void space below and suffered injuries.
On March 20, 2023, McCray filed a lawsuit against Maersk Line Limited and Maersk Line-Ltd., USA. He later dismissed the claims against Maersk Line-Ltd., USA. His remaining claims against Maersk Line Limited are based on section 905(b) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), 33 U.S.C. Sec. 905(b).
Maersk Line Limited, the sole remaining defendant, sought summary judgment on June 27, 2024. McCray responded to this motion and used the sworn statement of John Depaolo, Plaintiff’s gang foreman, and the supplemental report of maritime safety expert witness Ronald Signorino. Defendant filed a Daubert motion to exclude the sworn statement and the supplemental expert report of the maritime safety expert witness.
Maritime Safety Expert Witness
Ronald L. Signorino is a maritime safety and regulatory affairs expert with over five decades of experience in the industry. He is currently the President of The Blueoceana Company, Inc., a role he has held since January 2001. His extensive career includes key positions such as Director of Regulatory Affairs at Maersk Container Service Company, Director of Occupational Safety & Health at Universal Maritime Service Corporation, and Manager/Understudy Director at the Office of Maritime Standards within OSHA.
Discussion by the Court
Defendant sought to exclude Ronald Signorino’s supplemental report, which relied on John Depaolo’s sworn statement. The grounds for exclusion were: (1) the report’s untimeliness, as it was submitted after the expert report deadline, (2) Signorino’s alleged lack of qualifications in engineering, and (3) the report’s claimed lack of reliability and relevance.
Late Submission of the Report
Defendant argued that the supplemental report should be excluded because Plaintiff submitted it after the deadline. Plaintiff was required to designate experts and produce reports by January 5, 2024, which he met by submitting Signorino’s initial report on that date. Signorino was deposed on May 9, 2024. However, Plaintiff provided the supplemental report, based on Depaolo’s statement, only on July 3, 2024. Plaintiff did not seek court approval for this additional report.
To assess whether the delay was justified or harmless, the Court considered four factors: (1) the explanation for the delay, (2) the importance of the testimony, (3) potential prejudice to the Defendant, and (4) the availability of a continuance to remedy such prejudice.
Plaintiff explained that he received Depaolo’s statement only on April 24, 2024, after the deadline. This delay was due to Defendant’s timing, and not Plaintiff’s fault. Signorino was unaware of Depaolo’s observation about the grating clip’s security until after the deadline. The supplemental report was crucial for establishing causation. The admission of the report could cause prejudice to the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff agreed to re-depose Signorino or allow a rebuttal witness if needed as means to cure any prejudice to the Defendant. Thus, the Court found the delay did not warrant exclusion.
Qualifications of the Expert
Defendant argued that Signorino was unqualified to offer engineering opinions because he lacked formal training in structural engineering.
While Signorino did not have structural engineering qualifications, his 60 years of experience in maritime transport and safety regulations provided a sufficient basis for his opinions on grating and safety. He is qualified to testify that “The Plaintiff’s weight, when using the grating as intended, would not have caused the clamps to bend or loosen…” due to his extensive experience with similar vessels and gratings. This background allows him to determine if the grating would collapse under the Plaintiff’s weight or if a defect existed before the Plaintiff’s use.
The Court decided that Signorino’s extensive experience in similar contexts qualified him to give relevant testimony. It was held that Defendant’s lack of qualifications argument questioned the weight of the argument and not its admissibility and the Defendant could challenge his qualifications during cross-examination.
Reliability and Relevance of the Report
The Defendant argued that the Plaintiff failed to prove the reliability or relevance of the evidence. Firstly, the Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff did not establish reliability because he had not shown how Signorino determined what might cause the clamps to bend or loosen.
The Defendant described Signorino’s supplemental report as a “conclusory opinion” lacking support from Signorino’s own observations, testing, measurements, or analysis of the grate. Secondly, the Defendant contended that the Plaintiff had not demonstrated relevance because Depaolo’s observations of the grate, which formed the basis of Signorino’s report, occurred after the accident and after the grate had fallen several feet.
However, experts may rely on witness statements and prior experience to form opinions. Signorino’s supplemental report, which incorporated Depaolo’s observations and his own experience, was deemed reliable and relevant for causation purposes. The Court concluded that the report met the standards set by Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
The Court found no reason to exclude Depaolo’s statement or Signorino’s supplemental report. Signorino was qualified to testify on the metal grating, and his report was both reliable and relevant.
Held
The Court denied the Defendant’s motion to exclude Plaintiff’s maritime safety expert witness, Ronald Signorino.
Key Takeaway:
The Court denied the Defendant’s motion to exclude Ronald L. Signorino’s testimony and supplemental report for several reasons.
Signorino’s extensive maritime safety experience was deemed sufficient for providing expert opinions, despite lacking formal engineering qualifications. Additionally, the Court ruled that the supplemental report was reliable and relevant as it was based on credible witness statements and Signorino’s industry experience.
To conclude, the Court determined that there was no valid reason to exclude the expert testimony.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Mccray V. Maersk Line Limited Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 4:23cv995 |
| Court: | United States District Court, Texas Southern |
| Order Date: | August 29, 2024 |
Leave a Reply