Cornelius Hill Trudie Hastings Hill, H/w v. Reederei F. Laeisz G.M.B.H., Rostock Schiffarhtsgesellschaft Ms Priwall Mbh & Co. Kg

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that surprises by new testimony can be adequately cured by “extensive cross-examination of” the expert, “a sidebar on the issue of surprise, and even a recess to investigate the new evidence”
• noting that a shipowner may be liable for not warning of an “open and obvious hazard” if “avoiding the hazard would be impractical for the longshoreman” or “the ship should have known that the longshoremen would confront the hazard”
• finding no error in lower court’s admission of expert rebuttal testimony exceeding scope of expert’s original report
• looking to the “ordinary meanings” of a term in a jury instruction to determine whether it was confusing or misleading
• finding no error in the district court’s decision to admit opinion testimony outside the scope of the expert’s report
• finding no error in the district court’s rejection of an objection to expert testimony allegedly exceeding the scope of the expert’s report and amounting to undue surprise

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).