Murray v. Southern Route Maritime SA, No. 14-36056 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of plaintiff in an action filed under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA), 33 U.S.C. 901 et seq. The panel held that the district court properly instructed the jury that the vessel owner owed a duty to plaintiff as a longshoreman to turn over the ship and its equipment in a reasonably safe condition, which necessarily required the vessel owner to take reasonable steps to inspect the ship and equipment before turnover; the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing plaintiff's key scientific expert to describe his theory of electrical injury because the district court adequately assessed the reliability of his theory and fulfilled its gatekeeping function under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579; and there was no error in admitting the medical experts' testimony.
Court Description: Labor Law. The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment, after a jury trial, in favor of the plaintiff in an action under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. While working aboard a vessel, the plaintiff, a longshore worker, experienced an electrical shock when a piece of rebar he was holding came into contact with a floodlight provided by the vessel owner. He alleged that the vessel owner had been negligent in turning over the ship with a faulty floodlight. The panel held that the district court properly instructed the jury that the vessel owner owed a duty to the plaintiff as a longshore worker to turn over the ship and its equipment in a reasonably safe condition, which necessarily required the vessel owner to take reasonable steps to inspect the ship and equipment before turnover. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the plaintiff’s key scientific expert to describe his theory of electrical injury because the court adequately assessed the reliability of his theory and fulfilled its gatekeeping function under Federal Rule of Evidence 702
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.