Marine Safety Expert Impermissibly Ventured into the Field of Biomechanical Engineering
Posted on May 5, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
This negligence suit under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act arises out of an incident on the Defendants’ vessel, the M/V Ocean Belt (the “Vessel”).
On January 29, 2021, in his capacity as a ship superintendent employed by non-party Cooper Consolidated, LLC (“Cooper”), Joseph Trigleth was overseeing cargo operations on the Vessel, which required him to traverse the deck, including a platform crossing over the ship’s piping.
Trigleth alleged that, while descending the steps from the cross-over platform, he tripped and fell on a dolly loaded with safety pipes positioned near the bottom of the stairs such that the pipes protruded onto the step, causing him serious injury.
Defendants Ocean Belt Maritime, Inc. and Ocean Longevity Shipping & Management Company, Ltd. filed a motion to exclude and strike Plaintiff’s marine expert evidence while Trigleth filed a motion in limine to exclude or limit the testimony of Defendants’ expert, Captain Gajanan Karanjikar.
Marine Safety Expert Witnesses
Captain Ronald L. Campana has extensive experience on bulk carriers from many years as a marine surveyor and port captain. He is a graduate of the United States Merchant Marine Academy, Kings Point, NY and has
held various USCG and Panamanian licenses.
Captain Gajanan Karanjikar is a Senior Master Mariner with thirty-five (35) years of experience in the maritime profession.
After his 18-year sea-going career, he stepped ashore where he worked as a superintendent and subsequently as a surveyor. During that time, Karanjikar conducted investigations into numerous incidents and accidents involving crew, equipment and machinery. Additionally, he routinely conducted safety training, developed Risk Assessments matrixes, oversaw their implementation and evaluated their effectiveness. His work has won him many recognitions including the “Maritime ICON” award for my contributions to the maritime industry.
Discussion by the Court
Defendants’ Motion to Strike and Exclude Trigleth’s Marine Expert Evidence
In support of his claims, Trigleth retained Captain Ronald L. Campana as a marine expert.
Defendants objected to Campana’s opinions regarding the lighting on the deck of the Vessel, the measurements of the dolly and pipes, and the timing of the accident in relation to the stevedore crew’s break.
According to the Defendants, Campana’s opinions that the Vessel crew moved the dolly and pipes, failed to make rounds on the Vessel during cargo operations, failed to comply with the Vessel’s Safety Management System (“SMS”) are speculative. Defendants also found fault with Campana’s references to the International Safety Management Code (“ISM Code”).
Analysis
In a section of his report titled “Summary of Facts and Opinions,” Campana asserted that “[o]nly the ship’s crew could have moved the dolly and stanchions to the location where they became an obstruction.” The Court held that he did not apply any specialized knowledge to reach this conclusion but instead seemed to rely entirely on Trigleth’s testimony.
Campana also reached a conclusion about the lighting on the Vessel without applying any expertise. Campana did not identify any specialized knowledge that informed this conclusion, nor the testimony upon which it is purportedly based, likely because nothing in Trigleth’s deposition testimony supported this conclusion. Campana’s conclusions and opinions also included restatements of testimony and basic facts from the record, which the jury needs no help understanding. Campana also made general statements about the safety and propriety of the placement of the dolly. Finally, Campana made conclusions regarding the Vessel’s compliance with unspecified “safety guidelines” and “protocols.”
Moreover, Campana did not cite any provision of the ISM Code or other authority supporting the proposition that the Defendants were required to post a duty officer, make rounds at certain intervals, and “monitor the stevedoring operations,” nor did he offer any facts supporting his implied conclusion that these requirements were not met in this case.
The Court held that none of Campana’s opinions and conclusions will “help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue” and none are “the product of reliable principles and methods.”
Trigleth’s Motion to Exclude or Limit Testimony of Defendants’ Expert
Trigleth argued that some of Karanjikar’s opinions relate to “the field of biomechanical engineering and accident reconstruction,” which he is not qualified to opine on, and he “relied upon completely unsubstantiated factual assertions” and “inappropriately comments on issues of credibility and makes factual determinations reserved for the jury.”
Analysis
The Court agreed that the section of Karanjikar’s report titled “Inconsistencies in Trigleth’s account of the fall” did impermissibly “venture into the field of biomechanical engineering and accident reconstruction.”
Trigleth also argued that Karanjikar’s opinions based on the measurements of the dolly in relation to the height of the stairs and pipes are “speculative” because Karanjikar admittedly did not use the same dolly that was involved in the accident. However, the Court will not preclude Karanjikar from testifying regarding his observations of the exemplar dolly based on the mere fact that the dolly is not the same as the one in the accident.
Trigleth also objected to Karanjikar’s conclusion regarding the positioning of the pipes on the dolly. The Court determined that Karanjikar’s opinion in the context of this case is not based on his experience or expertise in “standard crew operations involving dolly operations on a vessel,” but on the common-sense notion that most people loading a dolly would not do so in such a way as would cause the load to “str[ike] their legs while taking a step,” a conclusion lay jurors could reach on their own “using only their common experience and knowledge.” Likewise, Karanjikar’s opinion that Trigleth “was likely using his phone and looking at its screen, [which] likely distracted him and even compromised his ability to accurately assess heights” is not the result of Karanjikar’s application of any expertise.
Moreover, the Court held that that Karanjikar may not comment on Trigleth’s credibility, specifically with respect to his “opinion” that Trigleth’s account of the accident “was a cover up for not adhering to safe practices,” and that Trigleth was withholding photographs of the scene of the accident.
Held
- The Court granted Defendants’ motion to exclude and strike Plaintiff’s marine expert evidence.
- The Court granted in part and denied in part Trigleth’s motion in limine to exclude or limit the testimony of Captain Gajanan Karanjikar.
Key Takeaways:
- An expert seeking to testify that a practice violates an industry standard must identify the standard and explain how the practice violates those standards.
- Experts are not permitted to credit or discredit witness testimony.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Trigleth V. Ocean Belt Maritime, Inc. Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 2:23cv65 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana |
| Order Date: | May 02, 2025 |
