This matter concerns an incident aboard the Valaris 144 while the vessel was performing offshore drilling services in the Gulf of Mexico off the Louisiana coast. Caleb Kittrell worked as a roustabout for Ensco Offshore on board the vessel owned by Rowan Offshore Luxembourg. On December 27, 2023, Kittrell was instructed to disconnect a jet line hose on board the vessel; however, as he went to disconnect the line, not knowing the line was still pressurized, the line disconnected and struck Kittrell’s hand resulting in injuries to his hand, including a “gamekeeper’s” fracture.
As a result of this incident, Kittrell had surgery to repair his hand and continues to suffer pain in his left thumb and index finger. Plaintiff asserted claims under the Jones Act, the General Maritime Law of Unseaworthiness and for the Seaman’s Remedy of Maintenance and Cure.
Perrin R. Roller, PE, a professional petroleum engineer, was retained by the Defendants to opine about the investigation of the incident at issue in the case and the operations that were conducted. Plaintiff filed a Daubertmotion, challenging the testimony and opinions of Roller.
Petroleum Engineering Expert Witness
Perrin R. Roller, PE has more than 40 years of experience in the oil and gas industry, including significant experience working offshore on jack-up drilling rigs.
Plaintiff challenged Roller’s opinions arguing that they are not based on reliable methodology. Defendants argued that Roller should be permitted to testify based on his extensive experience in the oil and gas industry. The Court agreed.
Roller’s curriculum vitae and affidavit detail his experience in the oil and gas field, from his start as a “roughneck” to his current role as a petroleum engineer and industry consultant. In addition to his personal experience in the oil and gas industry, having performed the task that Plaintiff performed in the present case, Roller relied upon industry practices and the Code of Federal Regulations to supplement his methodology. The Court found that Roller’s over forty years of experience in the field and his reliance on industry standards and applicable federal regulations in his report are “sufficient to withstand a Rule 702 challenge.”
Plaintiff pointed to Roller’s opinion that “The Valaris 144 was conducting jetting operations for several weeks prior to the incident involving Mr. Kittrell. In fact, the right was performing the jetting operations, almost exclusively for this time period. Mr. Kittrell would have seen and known the operations that were being conducted during his time for this particular hitch on the rig” to argue that this opinion is highly speculative and conclusory.
Because the opinions offered by Roller did not rely on completely unsubstantiated factual assertions, the Court will not exclude his testimony based on Plaintiff’s challenge to its reliability.
Held
The Court denied the Plaintiff’s Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Defendants’ expert Perrin R. Roller.
Key Takeaway
Having considered the opinions offered in light of the facts as alleged by Plaintiff, and further having determined that Roller’s opinions are based not only on his experience working in the oil and gas industry but also upon federal regulations and standard industry practice, the Court found that his testimony will aid the trier of fact in understanding the complicated practices and procedures of working on a vessel offshore in the oil and gas industry.
At its core, this case involves an alleged injury on a ship. Specifically, Plaintiffs Robert Mondella and Tara Mondella allege that Mr. Mondella was seriously injured when he fell from a gangway while performing services on board the JPO Capricornus (the “Capricornus”), a vessel owned by Defendants.
Defendants filed a motion to exclude the report and testimony of Plaintiffs’ expert Captain Joseph Ahlstrom.
Defendants challenge each of the enumerated opinions in Capt. Ahlstrom’s report on at least one of the following grounds: (1) that he is unqualified; that his opinions are speculative, conjectural, or otherwise rely on insufficient evidence; and (3) that he relied on principles or methods that are inappropriate or otherwise improper for expert testimony.
Maritime Safety Expert Witness
Captain Joseph F. Ahlstrom is a graduate of the State University of New York (SUNY) Maritime, with a bachelors degree in marine transportation. He completed his masters degree in transportation management with honors from SUNY Maritime College. Captain Ahlstrom has commanded six merchant ships, including a tanker, containership, breakbulk carrier, and research and training ship. He sailed for fifteen years in the U.S. and Foreign Merchant Marine. In January 1996, Captain Ahlstrom started teaching at SUNY Maritime College. During his time at SUNY Maritime he was captain of the Training Ship Empire State from 1998–2000. He also was chairman of the Marine Transportation Department from 2003 until May 2005.
Defendants challenged each of the enumerated opinions in Capt. Ahlstrom’s report on at least one of the following grounds: (1) that he is unqualified; (2) that his opinions are speculative, conjectural, or otherwise rely on insufficient evidence; and (3) that he relied on principles or methods that are inappropriate or otherwise improper for expert testimony.
Qualifications
Defendants argued that Capt. Ahlstrom “is not a metallurgist, possesses no educational background, training, or experience in the field of metallurgy, and is not qualified to opine on metallurgical matters (i.e., whether the pin was rusted or corroded, leading it to be in a ‘defective’ condition).”
Although Capt. Ahlstrom is an expert, his expertise on “hundreds if not thousands of [gangways]” demonstrates that he has experience generally with the type of gangway pin at issue, but it does not demonstrate that his expertise extends to qualify him to render the testimony about the condition and structural integrity of the pin at issue here.
Capt. Ahlstrom does not need to be a classically trained metallurgist, but he must have experience such that the Court is persuaded that his opinions on the condition of the at-issue pin are as reliable as his opinions based on other pins that were available for him to inspect in person. Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that Capt. Ahlstrom has experience in evaluating the condition of gangway pins through a single photograph.
Because Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that Capt. Ahlstrom has such experience, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Capt. Ahlstrom is qualified to testify about matters of deterioration or structural integrity under these circumstances.
Methodology
i. Capt. Ahlstrom’s Testimony is not Based on Sufficient Data
At bottom, Defendants relied on the fact that Capt. Ahlstrom did not inspect the relevant pin or gangway in person. Although the failure to conduct such inspection is not enough, by itself, to render expert testimony unreliable, Plaintiffs did not demonstrate that his testimony concerning his review of the available materials is reliable.
Plaintiffs conceded that without the tangible pin, their expert would not have access to sufficient facts or data necessary to determine the pin’s condition—those concessions are fatal.
If there was not enough information for Plaintiffs’ expert to determine material facts about the pin’s condition then, there is certainly not enough information now. Plaintiffs cannot credibly demonstrate that Capt. Ahlstrom’s testimony regarding the subject pin is based on sufficient facts or data. In other words, “there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered.”
That analytical gap renders the portions of the testimony that concern the condition of the pin speculative and conjectural. Because Rule 702 bars such speculative and conjectural testimony, the Court must preclude it.
ii. Capt. Ahlstrom’s Testimony is not the Product of Reliable Principles and Methods
One of Capt. Ahlstrom’s opinions is nothing more than an expert “simply accumulating and putting together one party’s story,” which is “expressly prohibited.”
Moreover, Capt. Ahlstrom’s failure to consider potential alternative explanations, and Plaintiffs’ failure to address this deficiency, further undermine the Court’s confidence that the subject testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods.
According to the Court, Capt. Ahlstrom provided legal conclusions about the duty of care and causation, disguised as his opinion.
Plaintiffs’ failure to demonstrate that their proposed expert’s testimony “is the product of reliable principles and methods,” or “a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case” is particularly troubling, as the principles-and-methods components of Rule 702 is the crux of the Court’s inquiry.
Held
The Court granted Defendants’ motion to exclude the report and testimony of Capt. Joseph Ahlstrom .
Key Takeaway
Concerns about the reliability of Capt. Ahlstrom’s reasoning and methodology, the sufficiency of available data, and the other infirmities discussed above lead the Court to the inescapable conclusion that Capt. Ahlstrom’s testimony will not assist the trier of fact. Taken together, Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that Capt. Ahlstrom’s testimony satisfies even one of the four requirements of Rule 702. Therefore, the Court found “that there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered.” That analytical gap renders Capt. Ahlstrom’s testimony at best, irrelevant, useless, and sure to waste time.
Case Details:
Case Caption:
Mondella V. Schiffahrtsgesellschaft Oltmann MBH & Co. KG
This negligence suit under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act arises out of an incident on the Defendants’ vessel, the M/V Ocean Belt (the “Vessel”).
On January 29, 2021, in his capacity as a ship superintendent employed by non-party Cooper Consolidated, LLC (“Cooper”), Joseph Trigleth was overseeing cargo operations on the Vessel, which required him to traverse the deck, including a platform crossing over the ship’s piping.
Trigleth alleged that, while descending the steps from the cross-over platform, he tripped and fell on a dolly loaded with safety pipes positioned near the bottom of the stairs such that the pipes protruded onto the step, causing him serious injury.
Defendants Ocean Belt Maritime, Inc. and Ocean Longevity Shipping & Management Company, Ltd. filed a motion to exclude and strike Plaintiff’s marine expert evidence while Trigleth filed a motion in limine to exclude or limit the testimony of Defendants’ expert, Captain Gajanan Karanjikar.
Marine Safety Expert Witnesses
Captain Ronald L. Campana has extensive experience on bulk carriers from many years as a marine surveyor and port captain. He is a graduate of the United States Merchant Marine Academy, Kings Point, NY and has held various USCG and Panamanian licenses.
Captain Gajanan Karanjikar is a Senior Master Mariner with thirty-five (35) years of experience in the maritime profession.
After his 18-year sea-going career, he stepped ashore where he worked as a superintendent and subsequently as a surveyor. During that time, Karanjikar conducted investigations into numerous incidents and accidents involving crew, equipment and machinery. Additionally, he routinely conducted safety training, developed Risk Assessments matrixes, oversaw their implementation and evaluated their effectiveness. His work has won him many recognitions including the “Maritime ICON” award for my contributions to the maritime industry.
Defendants’ Motion to Strike and Exclude Trigleth’s Marine Expert Evidence
In support of his claims, Trigleth retained Captain Ronald L. Campana as a marine expert.
Defendants objected to Campana’s opinions regarding the lighting on the deck of the Vessel, the measurements of the dolly and pipes, and the timing of the accident in relation to the stevedore crew’s break.
According to the Defendants, Campana’s opinions that the Vessel crew moved the dolly and pipes, failed to make rounds on the Vessel during cargo operations, failed to comply with the Vessel’s Safety Management System (“SMS”) are speculative. Defendants also found fault with Campana’s references to the International Safety Management Code (“ISM Code”).
Analysis
In a section of his report titled “Summary of Facts and Opinions,” Campana asserted that “[o]nly the ship’s crew could have moved the dolly and stanchions to the location where they became an obstruction.” The Court held that he did not apply any specialized knowledge to reach this conclusion but instead seemed to rely entirely on Trigleth’s testimony.
Campana also reached a conclusion about the lighting on the Vessel without applying any expertise. Campana did not identify any specialized knowledge that informed this conclusion, nor the testimony upon which it is purportedly based, likely because nothing in Trigleth’s deposition testimony supported this conclusion. Campana’s conclusions and opinions also included restatements of testimony and basic facts from the record, which the jury needs no help understanding. Campana also made general statements about the safety and propriety of the placement of the dolly. Finally, Campana made conclusions regarding the Vessel’s compliance with unspecified “safety guidelines” and “protocols.”
Moreover, Campana did not cite any provision of the ISM Code or other authority supporting the proposition that the Defendants were required to post a duty officer, make rounds at certain intervals, and “monitor the stevedoring operations,” nor did he offer any facts supporting his implied conclusion that these requirements were not met in this case.
The Court held that none of Campana’s opinions and conclusions will “help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue” and none are “the product of reliable principles and methods.”
Trigleth’s Motion to Exclude or Limit Testimony of Defendants’ Expert
Trigleth argued that some of Karanjikar’s opinions relate to “the field of biomechanical engineering and accident reconstruction,” which he is not qualified to opine on, and he “relied upon completely unsubstantiated factual assertions” and “inappropriately comments on issues of credibility and makes factual determinations reserved for the jury.”
Analysis
The Court agreed that the section of Karanjikar’s report titled “Inconsistencies in Trigleth’s account of the fall” did impermissibly “venture into the field of biomechanical engineering and accident reconstruction.”
Trigleth also argued that Karanjikar’s opinions based on the measurements of the dolly in relation to the height of the stairs and pipes are “speculative” because Karanjikar admittedly did not use the same dolly that was involved in the accident. However, the Court will not preclude Karanjikar from testifying regarding his observations of the exemplar dolly based on the mere fact that the dolly is not the same as the one in the accident.
Trigleth also objected to Karanjikar’s conclusion regarding the positioning of the pipes on the dolly. The Court determined that Karanjikar’s opinion in the context of this case is not based on his experience or expertise in “standard crew operations involving dolly operations on a vessel,” but on the common-sense notion that most people loading a dolly would not do so in such a way as would cause the load to “str[ike] their legs while taking a step,” a conclusion lay jurors could reach on their own “using only their common experience and knowledge.” Likewise, Karanjikar’s opinion that Trigleth “was likely using his phone and looking at its screen, [which] likely distracted him and even compromised his ability to accurately assess heights” is not the result of Karanjikar’s application of any expertise.
Moreover, the Court held that that Karanjikar may not comment on Trigleth’s credibility, specifically with respect to his “opinion” that Trigleth’s account of the accident “was a cover up for not adhering to safe practices,” and that Trigleth was withholding photographs of the scene of the accident.
Held
The Court granted Defendants’ motion to exclude and strike Plaintiff’s marine expert evidence.
The Court granted in part and denied in part Trigleth’s motion in limine to exclude or limit the testimony of Captain Gajanan Karanjikar.
Key Takeaways:
An expert seeking to testify that a practice violates an industry standard must identify the standard and explain how the practice violates those standards.
Experts are not permitted to credit or discredit witness testimony.
Case Details:
Case Caption:
Trigleth V. Ocean Belt Maritime, Inc. Et Al
Docket Number:
2:23cv65
Court Name:
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
This case concerns naval architecture, marine engineering, and a motor vessel called the “Pickle” or the “Pickle Rick.” Plaintiffs Intrepid Oceans Marine, LLC (“IOM”), Intracoastal Marine Fuel, LLC (“IMF”), and Intrepid Tankers, LLC (“IT”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) are retailers of marine petroleum in Palm Beach County, Florida. Defendant JMS Naval Architects, LLC (“Defendant”) is a licensed naval architect and marine engineering firm.
Plaintiffs planned to own and operate a tank barge in furtherance of IOM’s marine petroleum business. On March 27, 2019, IOM contracted with Defendant to design and construct a 10,000 Gallon Double Hull Tank Barge (the “Pickle”). On June 18, 2020, IMF contracted with St. John’s Ship Building, Inc. (“SJSB”) to construct the Pickle. The Pickle was completed on or about February 21, 2022.
Plaintiffs alleged that after they took possession of the Pickle, they discovered significant problems with the performance of the propulsion system.
The Plaintiffs sued the Defendant for breach of contract and professional negligence, claiming the Defendant’s errors and omissions in naval design, engineering, and owner’s representation caused them significant financial losses.
Defendant sought to introduce the opinions of its two experts, Captain Christopher Karentz, a senior maritime consultant, and Bryan E. Strawbridge, P.E., CFEI, CVFI, a senior mechanical engineer. Plaintiffs have moved to exclude portions of both experts’ testimony.
Maritime Expert Witness
Captain Christopher Karentz has over forty (40) years of experience within the marine industry, including evaluation of collisions, allisions, ship, yacht, and small vessel systems failures, human factors related to losses, and incidents involving proper or improper observance of best marine practices.
Karentz has been qualified in both State and Federal courts to testify in areas of expertise including but not limited to marine navigation, vessel operations, crewing, management, vessel cargo, and charter operations.
Bryan E. Strawbridge, P.E. is a senior mechanical engineer whose experience covers mechanical system failures, including marine engines and vessels; marine propulsion and auxiliary power; marine diesel engines; and more.
Whether IOM selected the engines under the advice of Cox and Peterson
Plaintiffs first moved to preclude Captain Karentz from offering his opinion that IOM selected the engines under the advice of Cox (the engine manufacturer), and Peterson Fuels.
Captain Karentz formed this opinion from his review of email communications between the parties and from his discussions with Defendant.
According to the Court, whether Plaintiffs selected the engines under the advice of Cox and Peterson Fuels is an issue of fact for the jury to determine after considering the evidence presented. This evidence includes the emails between Plaintiffs and Defendant. Karentz was not a party to these communications. And deciding whether these emails show that Plaintiffs selected the engines under the advice of third parties does not require specialized knowledge.
For these reasons, the Court held that Defendant has not met its burden to establish that allowing Captain Karentz to opine on this disputed fact would be helpful to the jury.
Whether IOM communicated with Cox and presented Cox to JMS as its preferred engine manufacturer
Plaintiffs moved to exclude Captain Karentz from offering his opinion that IOM communicated with Cox and presented Cox to Defendant as Plaintiffs’ preferred engine manufacturer.
Again, however, the Court held that these statements are not expert opinions. These are findings of fact that invade the province of the jury. Captain Karentz stated at his deposition that he formed his opinion based on his impression from his discussions with Defendant. Captain Karentz’s proffered expert testimony is not based on specialized knowledge; it is based on hearsay statements from Defendant.
The jury can weigh the trial evidence, including any admissible testimony from Defendant, to determine whether Plaintiffs communicated with Cox and whether Plaintiffs presented Cox to Defendant as the preferred engine manufacturer.
Whether Cox and/or SJSB had any responsibility to determine the suitability of the engines for application on the propulsion system of the Pickle
Plaintiffs next sought to exclude Captain Karentz from opining that Cox or SJSB had any responsibility to determine the suitability of the engines for the Pickle’s propulsion system.
In the expert report, Captain Karentz opined that “[a]s the designer and manufacturer of the subject motors, COX is the most knowledgeable entity to know if their motors were suitable.”
Plaintiff argued that Captain Karentz’s opinion should be excluded because Captain Karentz “is not a naval architect or marine engineer” and because his opinion “is pure speculation that is contradicted by the record evidence.”
During his testimony, Captain Karentz demonstrated his extensive expertise operating marine vessels and managing fleets; retaining and interacting with naval architects and shipbuilders; and helping to draft specifications for building and refitting vessels, as well as overseeing the related contracts.
The Court held that Captain Karentz’s testimony on this topic is neither speculative nor unreliable because his testimony is grounded in his relevant technical and specialized experience. His testimony assisted the jury in understanding the evidence to determine a fact in issue: who—Defendant, engine manufacturer, or vessel builder—bore responsibility to ensure that the engine would work as applied on the Pickle Rick.
The Standard of Care of JMS as a Naval Architect and Marine Engineering Firm
Plaintiffs next sought to exclude Captain Karentz from testifying as to Defendant’s standard of care as a naval architect and marine engineering firm, and to preclude Captain Karentz from rebutting Plaintiffs’ expert’s opinion that Defendant breached the applicable standard of care in this matter.
Plaintiff argued that Captain Karentz is unqualified to testify on this issue because he is not a naval architect or marine engineer. Plaintiff also argued that Captain Karentz did not apply “any reasonably accepted standard of care in the naval architect and marine engineering industries.”
Based on Captain Karentz’s testimony at the hearing on this motion, the Court held that his opinions on this issue are primarily about industry norms, contractual duties, and business obligations. Captain Karentz’s testimony concerned the typical role and behavior of a naval architect and marine engineering firm in the process of designing, building, and testing a vessel—that is, whether Defendant, as the naval architect and marine engineer, bore any responsibility to ensure the engines were suitable for the Pickle Rick.
The Court found Captain Karentz qualified to testify about Defendant’s responsibility on this issue.
Regarding whether either party can offer expert testimony as to the legal standard of care in this matter, the Court reserved its ruling.
Bryan E. Strawbridge, P.E., CFEI, CVFI
Plaintiffs moved to exclude Strawbridge from offering opinions about the Cox CXO300 engines themselves, including Strawbridge’s opinion that it should have been possible to tune the engines to operate on a displacement hull such as the Pickle Rick. Plaintiffs argued that Strawbridge is not qualified to opine on these particular engines, and that Strawbridge’s opinion on the “tunability” of the engines is purely speculative.
The Court found Strawbridge qualified when he testified at the hearing about the different ways that engines can be tuned or fitted to a vessel, such as through the engine’s software or making certain physical adjustments. Furthermore, Strawbridge spoke at length about the scientific methodology he applied—explaining, for example, how conducting sea trials results in a wealth of data for experts to review.
That said, Strawbridge himself stated during the hearing that he did not have access to enough data to support the conclusion that it should have been possible to tune the Cox engines to operate on a displacement hull such as the Pickle Rick. Strawbridge stated that although he applied the scientific method to analyze the situation, he did not personally have prior experience assessing dual diesel outboard engines, he was not permitted to join in troubleshooting the engines, and he did not have access to data from the vessel’s sea trials.
Without sufficient data, the conclusion that it should have been possible to tune the CXO300 engines is speculative. Because this lack of information has resulted in an unreliable methodology, the Court held that the Defendant has not met its burden of proof to establish the reliability of this expert opinion.
Held
The Court granted in part, denied in part and reserved in part Plaintiffs’ motion in limine to exclude certain opinions of Defendant’s experts, Captain Christopher Karentz and Bryan E. Strawbridge, P.E.
Key Takeaway:
While Strawbridge spoke at length about the scientific methodology he applies, he did not personally have prior experience assessing dual diesel outboard engines, he was not permitted to join in troubleshooting the engines, and he did not have access to data from the vessel’s sea trials.
Case Details:
Case Caption:
Intrepid Oceans Marine, LLC V. JMS Naval Architects, LLC
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.
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.
This matter concerns a maritime personal injury. On May 19, 2023, Bunting filed this case against Odyssea, alleging claims for Jones Act negligence, unseaworthiness, and negligence under general maritime law and state law, and seeking damages for injuries to his back, legs, knees, and feet.
Facts
In March 2018, Odyssea hired Bunting to work as a vessel captain. Bunting worked on vessels for 30 years and was a licensed captain for 20 of those years. In May 2021, Odyssea assigned Bunting to the M/V Odyssea Titan (“Odyssea Titan”), a 225-foot offshore supply vessel that is inspected and properly documented by the United States Coast Guard.
On April 20, 2022, the Odyssea Titan departed from Fourchon, Louisiana, to conduct cargo operations at drilling platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. During the voyage, Bunting and the first mate, Robert Weiss, alternated 12-hour watches, with Bunting being on duty from noon to midnight. Around 9:00 a.m., on May 25, 2022, Bunting was off duty and sleeping when he was awakened upon being bounced up and down in his bunk as the vessel was conducting cargo operations. Bunting went to the bridge to investigate why the vessel was “slamming” so heavily. He discovered that Weiss, at the direction of the platform’s crane operator, had positioned the vessel so that its stern was facing directly into the waves.
Bunting retained G. Fred Liebkemann, IV as his liability expert. Liebkemann, a licensed mechanical engineer, holds a bachelor’s of science degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Miami (1986), and completed one-and-a-half years of post-graduate study in mechanical engineering at Louisiana State University.
Odyssea filed a motion to exclude or limit Liebkemann’s proposed testimony from trial because his opinions did not relate to his area of expertise – mechanical engineering – but rather addressed vessel design and operations, topics about which he is unqualified to render expert opinions.
Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness
G. Fred Liebkemann, IV, a licensed mechanical engineer, holds a bachelor’s of science degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Miami (1986), and completed one-anda-half years of post-graduate study in mechanical engineering at Louisiana State University. He also has a certificate of achievement in automobile accident reconstruction.
He has designed several pieces of equipment, including cranes and other material handling equipment, oilfield equipment and structures, and certain kinds of vessels and marine components.
In his April 8, 2024 report, Liebkemann discussed the facts of the incident that he gleaned from Bunting’s deposition, specifically, that Bunting was thrown into the air while he slept because the vessel was slamming when floating high in the water with its stern facing the waves. Then, citing a study from 1970, Liebkemann explained the concept of vessel slamming, stating that it occurs when a vessel is lightly loaded and positioned with its stern facing rough waves.
Liebkemann ends his report by stating six opinions:
On account of its design, the Odyssea Titan experiences slamming when lightly loaded while station keeping in moderate following seas.
The role of the vessel when attending the customer’s platform involves station keeping per the customer’s requirements. These requirements often place constraints on both the position and the heading of the vessel.
The ability of the vessel’s master to correct the slamming issue by adding seawater ballast aft of the vessel’s center of gravity is curtailed by the reservation of all suitably sized and located tanks for cargo. Unwritten rules enforced by the owner’s office staff effectively prevent the use of cargo tanks for seawater ballast.
The conflict between the role of the vessel and the capabilities of the vessel is not addressed [in] the portions of the SMS document shared to date. The Operations Manual for the Odyssea Titan has not been provided to date.
Standing instructions to avoid headings that induce severe slamming of the stern while station keeping would have prevented the incident.
Captain Bunting was off duty and asleep in his bunk when he was injured. No action of his contributed to his injury.
Liebkemann is not a naval architect or marine engineer
Odyssea also contended that Liebkemann is unqualified to render the opinions set forth in his report because he is not a naval architect or marine engineer and the Court has never accepted him as an expert in either of those fields. With respect to Liebkemann’s specific opinions, Odyssea argued that Liebkemann parroted Bunting’s testimony; Liebkemann’s commentary on bottom slamming and his opinion regarding the vessel’s design fell within the expertise of a naval architect, not a mechanical engineer; and Liebkemann improperly relied on an outdated and inapposite study to support his statements. Also, Odyssea urged the Court to exclude Liebkemann’s calculations on draft and weight because they are incomplete and, thus, misleading and confusing. As to Liebkemann’s remining five opinions, Odyseea argued that they relate to vessel operations, a topic on which Liebkemann is unqualified to render opinions as he has no experience in that area.
Bunting indicated that, at a client’s request, Liebkemann once took over a project for a certified marine architect. As to Liebkemann’s remaining five opinions, Bunting argued that Liebkemann’s experience as a crane operator qualified him to opine on vessel operations.
The Court held that Liebkemann cannot offer any of his proposed opinions regarding the cause or effect of vessel slamming or any potential remedy. The Court considered his opinions as untethered from his actual area of expertise, mechanical engineering. He has no education or experience in overall vessel design, nor did he perform any calculations demonstrating the forces at work on the Odyssea Titan at the time of the incident.
Although he may have some experience in crane operations, this case is about the operation and handling of a vessel, not a crane.
Liebkemann’s last opinion is a legal conclusion
Liebkemann’s last opinion – viz., that Bunting did not contribute to his injury – is a legal conclusion and did not fall within the province of an expert. As a whole, the Court concluded that Liebkemann will bring no more to the jury than will be available through Bunting’s testimony and lawyer argument.
Held
The Court granted Odyssea’s motion to exclude or limit Liebkemann’s proposed testimony from trial because his opinions failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 702.
Key Takeaway:
Rule 702 also requires that an expert be properly qualified. Generally, if there is some reasonable indication of qualifications, the district court may admit the expert’s testimony, and then the expert’s qualifications become an issue for the trier of fact. A witness qualified as an expert is not strictly confined to his area or practice but may testify regarding related applications; a lack of specialization goes to the weight, not the admissibility of the opinion. While nobody challenged Liebkemann’s qualifications as a mechanical engineer, his report and deposition demonstrate that he is not qualified to render his proposed expert opinions because those opinions concern principles of naval architecture, marine engineering, and vessel operations or, more precisely, ship handling or vessel maneuvering.
The Court excluded Liebkemann’s testimony from trial due to his lack of qualifications in the fields of naval architecture, marine engineering, and vessel operations, and because it is not more likely than not that his specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact.
