Murray v. Southern Route Maritime SA

870 F.3d 915 (2017)

From our private database of 46,200+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Murray v. Southern Route Maritime SA

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
870 F.3d 915 (2017)

JC

Facts

Roger Murray (plaintiff) was working as a longshoreman when he was injured by an electrical shock while working on a boat owned by Southern Route Maritime SA (Southern Route) (defendant). Murray was climbing a ladder and holding a piece of rebar, which came into contact with a floodlight, resulting in Murray’s electrocution and injury. Murray sued Southern Route under a negligence theory, alleging that the company was negligent in providing a ship with a faulty floodlight. At trial, Murray used testimony from an expert witness, Dr. Michael Morse. Dr. Morse testified that low-voltage electrical current can cause injuries far from the path of electricity. Before allowing Dr. Morse to testify, the trial court had a hearing assessing Dr. Morse’s potential testimony in light of the Daubert standard. In reviewing documents submitted on both sides of the issue, the court noted that Dr. Morse had published his findings regarding low-voltage electrocution in eight articles in reputable scientific journals. Additional information was submitted by Murray establishing that numerous other scientists had published papers in peer-reviewed journals regarding low-voltage current and diffuse electrical energy. Southern Route’s counsel objected that there were too few low-voltage cases to draw sound conclusions and that the minimum voltage required to cause injury had not been established with any certainty. The trial court’s ruling allowing Dr. Morse to testify did not include any specific rulings regarding potential error rates or whether Dr. Morse’s theories enjoyed general acceptance in the scientific community. At trial, Murray received a verdict of over $3 million in his favor, and Southern Route then appealed, seeking a ruling that allowing Dr. Morse to testify was an abuse of discretion.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (McKeown, J.)

Dissent (Bea, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 797,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 797,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 797,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,200 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership