## Facts

- Constandino W. Sofillas was injured while using a hot tub on a cruise ship owned by Carnival Corporation.
- Sofillas sued Carnival, alleging Carnival was at fault in connection with the hot tub’s operation and maintenance and with the warnings given to passengers about use and dangers.
- Sofillas planned to call Alison Osinski as a witness at trial.
- Osinski was presented as a witness qualified in the maintenance and operation of hot tubs.
- Osinski planned to offer opinions that Carnival was negligent in how it operated and maintained the hot tub and in how it warned passengers about uses and potential dangers.
- Carnival objected to Osinski’s proposed testimony on the ground that it improperly stated an opinion on the ultimate issue in the case—Carnival’s negligence.

## Issues

1. Whether a witness qualified in hot-tub operation and maintenance may testify that Carnival “was negligent” in operating/maintaining the hot tub and warning passengers, or whether that is an inadmissible legal conclusion under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
2. Whether the witness may still provide technical opinions about hot-tub operation, maintenance practices, and the content and sufficiency of warnings, even if those opinions bear on liability.

## Decision

- The court limited the scope of Osinski’s testimony.
- The court allowed Osinski to testify on technical subjects within her field, including hot-tub operation and maintenance practices and opinions related to warnings about use and risks.
- The court did not allow Osinski to present a direct legal conclusion that Carnival “was negligent” (or similar duty/breach conclusions), because negligence is the legal question for the factfinder under the court’s instructions.

## Legal Principles

- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, opinion testimony from a qualified witness must help the trier of fact and be based on reliable methods applied to sufficient facts or data.
- Federal Rule of Evidence 704 permits opinion testimony that touches an ultimate factual issue, but it does not permit a witness to give a bare legal conclusion (such as that a party “was negligent”).
- In negligence cases, a technical witness may explain relevant practices and standards and identify ways conduct may have departed from those practices, but applying the legal label of “negligence” is reserved to the jury (or the court in a bench trial).

## Conclusion

Sofillas v. Carnival Corp. treated hot-tub operation/maintenance and passenger warnings as proper subjects for technical opinion testimony, but it restricted the plaintiff’s witness from characterizing Carnival’s conduct as “negligent,” because that phrasing states a legal conclusion rather than assisting the factfinder with technical facts and standards.


Sofillas v. Carnival Corp., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139427 (2016)