Naval Architecture Expert Allowed to Opine on Warning Requirements and Practices

David Cox served in the Navy as a pipefitter and shipfitter from 1970 to 1974 and was a pipefitter and insulator employed by the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard from 1974 to 1987. Cox was diagnosed with lung cancer in August 2022 and died less than two weeks later. Jean C. Cox, his widow, as the Administratrix of his estate and in her own right, has brought survival and wrongful death actions against Defendants John Crane, Inc. ("John Crane") and Watts Regulator Co. ("Watts"). She asserted in her second amended complaint that her late husband's death resulted from his exposure to asbestos contained in John Crane's packing and gasket materials as well as Watts' steam traps and pressure reducing valves on various Navy ships on which he worked.

John Crane and Watts separately filed motions to exclude parts of the testimony of Plaintiff's expert Captain R. Bruce Woodruff, a Naval Architect and Marine Engineer.

Naval Architecture Expert Witness

Captain Robert Bruce Woodruff is a naval architect and marine engineer who is an expert in the design, construction, operation, inspection, testing, trials, repair, and maintenance of naval vessels and commercial ships. He has a Bachelor of Science from the United States Naval Academy. He also holds two graduate degrees, a Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering and an Ocean Engineer in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Want to know more about the challenges R. Bruce Woodruff has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

Discussion by the Court

John Crane sought to exclude two categories of Woodruff's opinions: (1) that the Navy would have included asbestos warnings if vendors had submitted them and that the Navy required warnings of hazardous materials and (2) that John Crane products were on the USS America on which Cox worked from 1970 to 1974. Watts sought to exclude Woodruff's opinion that its products were on the ships at issue.

John Crane's Motion to Exclude Woodruff's Testimony in Part

Defendant John Crane specifically maintained that Woodruff's methodology is unreliable with respect to how the Navy approached warnings between 1974 and 1980. First, it also argued that there is evidence that John Crane complied with the Navy's product specifications and inspection requirements. It next pointed to his changing answers during his deposition. When asked about the extent and timing of warning requirements, he variously testified that the Navy first required asbestos warnings in the early 1970s, mid-1970s, late 1970s and 1980. John Crane also contended that these changing answers were in part based on a peer-reviewed article on the Navy's engineering requirements and extent of approval, which in its view, Woodruff misinterpreted. The article was written by Denish Rushworth, a former colleague of Woodruff whom he describes as "very knowledgeable about asbestos." The Rushworth article concluded that that manufacturer requests to add an asbestos warning to materials would not have been approved by the Navy, let alone placed on equipment labels or manuals available to ship workers which is antithetical to Woodruff's own opinions.

The Court found that Woodruff's underlying methodology for evaluating asbestos warnings requirements is reliable. Surveying the full array of available sources, evaluating the reliability of the sources, and thus providing a basis for a reliable narrative about that past is proper historical work.

Woodruff conducted such a review of records and documents available in the early to mid-1900s to determine what packaging or warnings the Navy required and whether vendors submitted their own warnings or not. He reviewed a variety of documents from different sources, including both the military and vendors. He also relies on his extensive experience in the Navy during which he viewed many materials, equipment, technical manuals and drawings supplied by vendors to conclude that vendors knew about the hazardous nature of asbestos well before 1974 and that, prior to 1980, had vendors submitted asbestos warnings, the Navy would have included them.

It is not for the Court to decide whether Woodruff's opinions are correct. But Woodruff's conclusions that the Navy would have included warning labels had vendors supplied them "could reliably flow from the facts known to Woodruff and the methodology used." The accuracy and his certainty in his own expert opinion go to his credibility and the weight of his testimony, which is best addressed through cross-examination and presentation of contrary evidence.

John Crane also contended that Woodruff did not base his opinion on relevant documents. For instance, instead of referring to product specifications of John Crane's products beginning in 1974, when Cox was allegedly exposed to asbestos contained in those products, Woodruff's report cites gasket specifications prior to 1974. Additionally, other Navy requirements and documents show that the Navy did not require asbestos warnings and that it controlled the wording of warnings. Furthermore, John Crane argued that Woodruff should have considered the Navy's requirements for consumable suppliers, not equipment suppliers, and the MIL-STD-129, a document he described as a "Bible for shipping and packaging."

That Woodruff did not rely on all available documents does not make his underlying methodology unsound. And while John Crane presents examples of contrary evidence, it is not for the Court to evaluate whether the results of Woodruff's proper methodology are correct.

The discrepancies and purported errors noted above can also be addressed by cross-examination and presentation of contrary evidence at trial.

Finally, John Crane argued that Woodruff should not be permitted to opine that John Crane products were onboard the USS America from 1970 to 1974, when Cox served on it while in the Navy. It argued that this opinion is unreliable since there is no evidence that John Crane's products were on that ship, let alone near Cox, during that time.

While Woodruff testifies about John Crane products on other ships where Cox worked, Plaintiff concedes that there is no evidence identifying the products onboard the USS America between 1970 and 1974 and that there is no intention of eliciting testimony from Woodruff on this issue. John The Court granted Crane's motion to exclude the testimony and opinion of Woodruff as it pertains to the presence of John Crane products on the USS America from 1970 to 1974.

Watts' Motion to Partially Exclude the Testimony of Woodruff

Defendant Watts sought to exclude Woodruff's opinions that "Watts products were onboard the Naval Ships alleged to be at issue in this case" on the basis that his opinions were unreliable and did not fit the facts of the case. Watts specifically argued that Woodruff's opinion that Cox was exposed to Watts products while he worked on Navy ships should be excluded as unreliable because Woodruff did not follow the methodology he explained for identifying manufacturers of products containing asbestos found on the naval ships he evaluated for his report. His methodology involved reviewing the records and documents of ships on which Cox purportedly worked, as identified by Albert Pappalardo, Cox' co-worker. Using those documents, Woodruff identified the equipment and materials on those ships. Watts did not challenge Woodruff's methodology itself.

Woodruff did not mention Watts in his expert report, which was written months before Watts was joined as a party. But when asked at his deposition if he intended to offer any new opinions, he stated that he intended to opine on whether Watts supplied products to the Navy after reviewing materials cited in his written report and transcripts of Pappalardo's depositions. Plaintiff stated that Woodruff's opinion is not being offered to supplement other evidence showing that Cox was exposed to Watts' products. Instead, his opinion is proffered to "provide technical insight into how ships that contained equipment, such as valves and steam traps, operate, the maintenance and repairs required to keep vessels operational, and whether valve and steam trap manufacturers, such as Watts, were prohibited from placing warning labels on their equipment and in their manuals."

Woodruff is not opining on what products Cox would have seen on the ships on which he worked. He is assuming that Pappalardo's testimony is true and opining on how valves and steam traps like those made by Watts were kept, maintained, and repaired on ships and whether the Navy would have placed warning labels on equipment if Watts had submitted warnings. He is relying on Pappalardo's testimony that Watts products were onboard the ships on which Cox worked. This reliance is permissible under Rule 703.

Held

• The Court granted in part and denied in part John Crane's motion to exclude (in part) the testimony of Captain R. Bruce Woodruff.

• The Court denied Watts' motion to partially exclude the testimony of Captain R. Bruce Woodruff.

Key Takeaway

An expert witness may rely on facts to be learned at trial or a hearing and learned out of court. Once an expert identifies a factual foundation in the record, it is opposing counsel's burden to explore those facts and the expert's assumptions through cross-examination.

Case Details: