Id. (quoting Salem v. United States Lines Co., 370 U.S. 31, 36 (1962) ("That is, 'if all primary facts can be accurately and intelligibly described to the jury and they . . . are capable of comprehending the primary facts and of drawing correct conclusions from them as are witnesses possessed of special or peculiar training, experience, or observation in respect to the subject under investigation,' then no expert testimony is needed."). Id. at 6 & n.13. (citing McCord v. Fab-Con, 2013 WL 3490964 (E.D. La. July 10, 2013) (Plaintiff tripped over a mooring line on a vessel); Williams v. Triple C Enterprises, 2011 WL 6819012 (E.D. La. July 28, 2011) (Plaintiff slipped and fell on a barge); Roy v. Florida Marine Transporters, 2004 WL 551208 (E.D. La. Mar. 18, 2004) (Plaintiff fell off milk crate he was standing to sand an area overhead); and Thomas v. Global Explorer, LLC, 2003 WL 943645 (E.D. La. Mar. 3, 2003) (Plaintiff fell off a ladder on the vessel). Id. at 6 (citing 1991 WL 99426, at 1 (E.D. La. May 31, 1999)).
Id (citing Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579, 592 (1993)). Id. See also Roy v. Florida Marine Transporters, Inc., 2004 WL 551208, at *5 (E.D. La. March 18, 2004) (stating that such questions regarding the facts and assumptions considered by an expert are "proper topics for cross examination and go to the weight that the court will afford [the expert's] opinion.") Rec. Doc. 26 at 3-4.
As the cases Rowan cites indicate, this Court has often excluded expert testimony in routine personal injury cases after finding that the issues could be resolved based on commonsense and ordinary experience. See e.g., Thomas v. Global Explorer, LLC, No. 02-1060, 2003 WL 943645 (E.D. La. Mar. 3, 2003) (Vance, J.) (plaintiff injured after falling from ladder); Roy v. Fla. Marine Transporters, Inc., No. 03-1195, 2004 WL 551208 (E.D. La. Mar. 18, 2004) (Vance, J.) (plaintiff injured after falling off milk crate); Marshall v. Supreme Offshore Servs., Inc., No. 10-3198, 2011 WL 6258487 (E.D. La. Dec. 15, 2011) (Vance, J.) (plaintiff injured after slipping on welding rod left in hallway); Mang v. Parker Drilling Offshore, L.L.C., No. 99-3361, 2001 WL 179920 (E.D. La. Feb. 22, 2001) (Clement, J.) (plaintiff injured after "rolling out of bed"). In this case, however, Borison's testimony relates to less obvious matters involving maritime safety procedures for crane operations, rigging, and seaman training. The Court finds that Borison's specialized knowledge and testimony may assist the jury in its consideration of the issues outlined in his report.
When an expert's conclusions are based upon regulations, those regulations must be applicable to the facts at hand. Otherwise, when the violation of the regulation is the sole basis for the expert opinion, it will not assist the trier of fact. See, e.g., Roy v. Florida Marine Transporters, Inc.,2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4390, at *10 (E.D. La. Mar. 18, 2004). In Roy, the expert's testimony was excluded because he relied on an OSHA regulation despite the fact that the regulation did not require surfaces to have non-skid material which was contrary to the expert's opinion.
Id. Likewise, in Roy v. Florida Marine Transporters Inc., the proffered expert opined that the captain violated the defendant's operations manual and standard industry practices when he allowed his crew to work from heights on make-shift platforms. Roy v. Florida Marine Transporters Inc., No. 03-1195, 2004 WL 551208, at *3 (E.D. La. Mar. 18, 2004). Judge Vance held that the expert opinion was inadmissible because such testimony "would intrude upon the domain of common sense matters" reserved for the jury.