Garcia v. Vitus Energy, L.L.C. (Garcia II)

EVIDENCE LAW
United States District Court, District of Alaska (2022)

Jake Sherman


In Garcia v. Vitus Energy, L.L.C., 605 F. Supp. 3d 1179 (D. Alaska 2022), the court held that an
expert makes an impermissible legal conclusion in violation of the federal rules of evidence when
he comments on an employee’s negligence in a case concerning the employer’s liability for
negligence per se. (Id. at 118485). After suffering injuries while being transported on the skiff of
a tugboat owned and operated by Vitus, a passenger sued for negligence per se. Vitus filed a motion
in limine to exclude certain opinions of one of the passenger’s experts, a retired Coast Guard
captain and purported expert on maritime safety. (Id. at 1182). In particular, Vitus sought to
exclude the expert’s opinions on (1) the captain’s level of intoxication, (2) the captain’s negligence,
(3) the condition of the skiff, (4) the sufficiency of Vitus’s training, and (5) the captain’s decision
making process at the time of the incident. (Id. at 1183). The court granted the motion in part,
excluding the expert’s opinions on (1) the captain’s level of intoxication, (2) the captain’s
negligence, and (3) the captain’s decisionmaking processes. (Id. at 1184, 1185, 1188). Excluding
the expert’s comments on the captain’s alleged negligence, the court distinguished the expert’s
testimony from prior circuit precedent. (Id. at 1184). Precedent had established that experts may
comment on the relevant law if their conclusion is merely ancillary to the ultimate issues of law in
the case. (Id.). The court reasoned here that the issue of the captain’s negligence was not ancillary,
but central to the question of Vitus’s liability for negligence per se. (Id.). After reviewing the rest
of Vitus’s proposed exclusions, the district court granted its motion in part, finding that the
passenger’s expert made an impermissible legal conclusion when he commented on the captain’s
alleged negligence in a case concerning the employer’s liability for negligence per se. (Id. at 1184,
1188).

Garcia v. Vitus Energy, L.L.C. (Garcia II)

EVIDENCE LAW
United States District Court, District of Alaska (2022)

Jake Sherman


In Garcia v. Vitus Energy, L.L.C., 605 F. Supp. 3d 1179 (D. Alaska 2022), the court held that an
expert makes an impermissible legal conclusion in violation of the federal rules of evidence when
he comments on an employee’s negligence in a case concerning the employer’s liability for
negligence per se. (Id. at 118485). After suffering injuries while being transported on the skiff of
a tugboat owned and operated by Vitus, a passenger sued for negligence per se. Vitus filed a motion
in limine to exclude certain opinions of one of the passenger’s experts, a retired Coast Guard
captain and purported expert on maritime safety. (Id. at 1182). In particular, Vitus sought to
exclude the expert’s opinions on (1) the captain’s level of intoxication, (2) the captain’s negligence,
(3) the condition of the skiff, (4) the sufficiency of Vitus’s training, and (5) the captain’s decision
making process at the time of the incident. (Id. at 1183). The court granted the motion in part,
excluding the expert’s opinions on (1) the captain’s level of intoxication, (2) the captain’s
negligence, and (3) the captain’s decisionmaking processes. (Id. at 1184, 1185, 1188). Excluding
the expert’s comments on the captain’s alleged negligence, the court distinguished the expert’s
testimony from prior circuit precedent. (Id. at 1184). Precedent had established that experts may
comment on the relevant law if their conclusion is merely ancillary to the ultimate issues of law in
the case. (Id.). The court reasoned here that the issue of the captain’s negligence was not ancillary,
but central to the question of Vitus’s liability for negligence per se. (Id.). After reviewing the rest
of Vitus’s proposed exclusions, the district court granted its motion in part, finding that the
passenger’s expert made an impermissible legal conclusion when he commented on the captain’s
alleged negligence in a case concerning the employer’s liability for negligence per se. (Id. at 1184,
1188).