While Evidence Was Sufficient To Find An Employer Liable For Negligence Under The Jones Act, A New Trial On Damages Was Ordered Because The Expert Report On Which It Was Based Lacked A Proper Foundation Under The Federal Rules Of Evidence In That The Expe
DAVID SCOTT McMILLAN, Plaintiff, v. WEEKS MARINE, INC., Defendant.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20833
March 22, 2007, Decided
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff, a worker in the dredging industry, brought an action against defendant employer under the Jones Act, alleging that he sustained damages as a result of the employer's negligence. After a jury verdict in the worker's favor, the employer filed several motions, including a motion for judgment as a matter of law and a motion to vacate the award of past and future lost earnings and for a new trial on damages.
OVERVIEW: The worker alleged that, through its negligence and unseaworthy vessels, his employer subjected him to unsafe working conditions from which he sustained injuries. According to the worker, he had been working on an overly muddy scow and was not given a chance to wash the mud off his boots before transferring to another boat. As a result, he slipped and fell off the boat, sustaining facial and shoulder injuries. A jury returned a verdict finding that the employer was partially negligent, and awarded the worker $ 378,533. The court found that the worker's evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict finding the employer partially negligent. However, it also found that the worker's expert improperly based his projections of lost earnings on his assumption that the worker would work for the rest of his work-life on a full-time basis at an artificially determined wage. The court concluded that the expert reports lacked a proper foundation because the expert failed to consider the worker's complete work history and the seasonal nature of the worker's dredging industry positions prior to the injury. As a result, the court ordered a new trial on damages.
OUTCOME: The court denied the employer's motion for judgment as a matter of law, but granted the motion to vacate the award and for a new trial on damages.
