Knudson v. M/V American Spirit et al
Filing
252
ORDER denying 231 Motion in Limine; denying 232 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 233 Motion in Limine; denying 234 Motion in Limine. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (BSau)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JEFFREY TODD KNUDSON,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 14-14854
vs.
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH
M/V AMERICAN SPIRIT, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________/
ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS
IN LIMINE [ECF Nos. 231, 232, 233, 234]
This matter has come before the court on defendants’ motion in
limine to exclude evidence or argument regarding punitive damages [ECF
No. 231]; defendants’ renewed motion in limine to exclude evidence of
future economic losses [ECF No. 232]; defendants’ motion in limine to
exclude certain trial deposition testimony of Natalie Klein [ECF No. 233];
and plaintiff’s motion in limine to exclude evidence created by Medaire, Inc.
[ECF No. 234]. The court does not believe that oral argument will aid its
determination of these motions and thereby rules on the briefs as
described below.
Defendants move to exclude evidence, testimony or argument
regarding the financial information of American as irrelevant to punitive
damages related to plaintiff’s maintenance claim. Maintenance and cure
is an obligation under maritime law that a maritime employer has to its
employees. While Liberty is designated as plaintiff’s employer, American
took on several obligations typical of an employer. For example, American
trained and supervised plaintiff in the performance of his duties on the
American vessel in which he served. At the time of his injury, plaintiff was
being supervised by the officers of the vessel, who were all American
employees. Most importantly for purposes of this motion, after his injury
American paid plaintiff’s maintenance payments and allegedly made the
decision to withhold payment of a higher amount in order to force plaintiff to
agree to arbitrate his claims.
As it relates to plaintiff’s maintenance claim, it is the conduct of
American that forms the basis for the request for punitive damages. The
court finds that American should be treated as plaintiff’s employer for
purposes of asserting punitive damages. As such, American’s financial
condition is relevant to plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages.
Defendants next argue that the court should limit any evidence,
testimony or argument that would suggest an amount or calculation of
punitive damages that would exceed a 1:1 ratio to any compensatory
damages. In support, defendants cite to the Supreme Court’s decision in
-2-
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (2008), where the Court
applied a 1:1 ratio of punitive to compensatory damages. The Baker ratio
has been applied to maritime cases involving environmental contamination
or vessel collisions. Other courts have determined that the 1:1 ratio does
not apply to certain maintenance and cure actions where the shipowner’s
conduct was more reprehensible than Exxon’s behavior. See Clausen v.
Icicle Seafoods, 272 P.3d 827 (2012). The court finds this portion of
defendants’ motion to be premature and not the appropriate subject of a
motion in limine. If there is a jury verdict as to punitive damages,
defendants may bring an appropriate motion at that time.
Defendants’ motion in limine is DENIED, subject to appropriate
objections at trial.
Defendants renew their motion to exclude the testimony of Dr.
Michael Thomson regarding plaintiff’s future economic losses based on the
court’s statement that whether plaintiff would have advanced from his entry
level rating with Liberty and thus earned higher wages in the future was
speculative (ECF No. 226). Defendants argue the court, as gatekeeper of
expert opinion, should not permit Dr. Thomson to submit unsubstantiated
and speculative assertions to the jury at trial.
Dr. Thomson will be permitted to give his opinion based on the
-3-
evidence presented to him. If there is evidence to support the conclusion
that plaintiff’s advancement, absent injury, was all but assured, then Dr.
Thomson can give his opinion regarding future economic losses based on
such evidence.
Defendants’ motion in limine is DENIED, subject to appropriate
objections at trial.
Defendants move to exclude certain testimony of lay witness Natalie
Klein. Federal Rule of Evidence 602 requires lay witnesses to testify from
their own personal knowledge. Rule 802 makes testimony based on
hearsay evidence inadmissible. Natalie Klein is plaintiff’s friend and
neighbor. A large amount of Mrs. Klein’s trial deposition testimony is
based on the hearsay statements of the plaintiff. For example, Mrs. Klein
was not present on the vessel when plaintiff was injured, nor was she with
him immediately afterward, but she testified about how the accident
occurred and where plaintiff stayed immediately following the accident.
She testified she knew this information because the plaintiff had told her
about it. Similarly, she testified about plaintiff’s injuries, pain, and ability to
perform physical tasks after the accident based on what he told her. The
same is true for her knowledge of plaintiff’s emotional and mental health
treatment, his ability to survive on the money defendants paid him after the
-4-
accident, and the fact that he enjoyed his previous employment in the
Pacific fisheries.
The court orders that Mrs. Klein’s deposition should be purged of any
testimony not based on her firsthand knowledge of what she witnessed.
To the extent that Mrs. Klein has firsthand knowledge of plaintiff before and
after the accident, her testimony about the symptoms he displays, how his
injuries have changed his life, and any other observations are admissible.
Defendants’ motion in limine is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part.
Plaintiff moves to exclude certain evidence created by MedAire, a
company that provides medical advisory services to vessels. The
evidence at issue is certain audio recordings and notes made by MedAire
personnel contacted by crew mates on the vessel hours after plaintiff’s
accident. MedAire spoke to the Captain and the first mate, John Onley,
about the accident and plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff specifically objects to
the portion of the evidence stating that he “fell off the chair landing on the
dock, approximately a 12-20 foot fall. He landed on his feet, ‘stuck a
perfect 10 landing . . . .’” This report was shown to the medical experts
who then repeat some of this information in their own reports. Plaintiff
seeks to exclude references to the MedAire evidence because it is hearsay
-5-
and is likely to confuse the issues and mislead the jury.
The court previously addressed these same arguments and denied
plaintiff’s prior motion in limine on the record on March 18, 2019 (ECF No.
195, pg. 21). For the same reasons, the court DENIES plaintiff’s motion in
limine, subject to the authentication of such evidence and appropriate
objections at trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 25, 2020
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record
on March 25, 2020, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Brianna Sauve
Deputy Clerk
-6-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?