Murray et al v. Southern Route Maritime SA et al

Filing 125

ORDER denying 86 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 90 Defendants' Motion to Exclude Experts, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(MD)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

_______________________________________
)
ROGER and ELISE MURRAY,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
)
SOUTHERN ROUTE MARITIME, S.A.,
)
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________)

No. C12-1854RSL
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO
EXCLUDE EXPERTS

14

This matter comes before the Court on “Defendants’ Motion for Summary

15
16

Judgment” (Dkt. # 86) and “Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Expert Witnesses” (Dkt. # 90).

17

Having reviewed the memoranda, declarations, and exhibits submitted by the parties,1 the Court

18

finds as follows:
(1) There is admissible evidence, both direct and circumstantial, from which a

19
20

reasonable fact finder could conclude that plaintiff was shocked while working aboard the M/V

21

APL IRELAND. Mr. Murray has personal knowledge of what he experienced that night, and he

22

need not be an electrician or a serial victim of electrocutions to testify that he felt a jolt of

23
24
25
26

1

The motions can be decided on the papers submitted. Plaintiffs’ requests for oral argument are
therefore DENIED.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION
TO EXCLUDE EXPERTS

1

electricity in his right arm that radiated across his chest and into his left arm. The evidence

2

would also support a reasonable inference that the shock was caused by a faulty light fixture

3

hanging in the vicinity. Defendants may, of course, challenge the fact of a shock, its source, and

4

the extent of damages, but they are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on these issues.
(2) Experts regularly rely on facts about which they have no personal knowledge

5
6

when developing their opinions. If plaintiff is unable to convince the jury that he was, in fact,

7

shocked while working aboard defendants’ vessel, the jury will undoubtedly discount any expert

8

opinion that presumes that fact.
(3) Defendants initially sought a determination that “no reasonable fact finder

9
10

could find there is sufficient admissible evidence to prove Plaintiff suffered an electrical shock”

11

(Dkt. # 86 at 2) and that in the absence of proof of shock, the experts’ opinions must be excluded

12

as “baseless speculation and conjecture” (Dkt. # 90 at 2). Arguments raised for the first time in

13

reply (such as the request to exclude Dr. Morse’s opinions because he did not follow his own

14

methodology) have not been considered. Nor has the Court considered the deposition testimony

15

of Dr. Glisky.

16

(4) Mr. Murray’s treating physicians would properly have considered his self-

17

report of an electric shock when developing a diagnostic and treatment plan. Their opinions

18

regarding the existence of a shock are also supported by objective findings and are therefore

19

admissible. To the extent the treating physicians are merely parroting Mr. Murray’s statements

20

regarding the source of the electric current, however, those statements were not necessary to

21

obtaining treatment, were not based on Mr. Murray’s personal knowledge, and are inadmissible.

22
23
24
25
26

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION
TO EXCLUDE EXPERTS

-2-

1

For all of the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motions for summary judgment and to

2

exclude expert witnesses are DENIED. Plaintiffs may not, however, rely on conclusory

3

statements in the medical records regarding the source of the electricity that allegedly shocked

4

Mr. Murray on January 16, 2010.

5
6

Dated this 6th day of August, 2014.
7
8

A
Robert S. Lasnik

9

United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION
TO EXCLUDE EXPERTS

-3-