Sotomayor's Ruling on Maritime Experts

Sotomayor in Wills v. Amerada Hess Corp., 379 F.3d 32 (2nd Cir. 2004).

This case presented a question never before decided by a federal appeals court: Do admiralty cases under the Jones Act, which have a relaxed standard of proof, also have a lower standard for the admission of expert testimony?

A widow alleged her husband's cancer death resulted from benzene exposure while working on a vessel. The district court dismissed on summary judgment, finding insufficient evidence of causation.  On appeal, the widow argued that traditional standards used to determine the admissibility of expert testimony should be relaxed in Jones Act cases, since the Jones Act has a relaxed causation standard.

Sotomayor disagreed. "Daubert's standards for determining the admissibility of expert testimony apply regardless of whether the plaintiff's burden to prove causation is reduced."  She noted that "In a case such as this, where an injury has multiple potential etiologies, expert testimony is necessary to establish causation, even in view of plaintiff's reduced burden to prove causation."

Labels: Admiralty Benzene Daubert expert expert testimony Jones Act Sotomayor vessel