## Facts

- Michael T. Wilburn, an able-bodied tankerman employed by Maritrans GP Inc., worked aboard the tug *Enterprise*.
- During a storm, Wilburn was swept off the deck by a large wave and sustained physical injuries (including left arm/shoulder) and alleged psychological injury (post-traumatic stress).
- Wilburn sued under the Jones Act for negligence and under general maritime law for unseaworthiness.
- He alleged, among other theories, that the captain negligently selected course/speed and negligently handled or released a Samson line during the storm, and that unsafe practices/equipment made the vessel unseaworthy.
- Wilburn did not offer expert testimony on liability; he sought to present lay opinion testimony from himself and a barge captain regarding seamanship and shipboard practices, but the trial court excluded parts of that opinion testimony.
- A jury returned a general verdict finding negligence and unseaworthiness and awarded substantial damages, including a large component for loss of future earning capacity.
- Post-verdict, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) for Maritrans on both liability and damages and alternatively ordered a new trial on both.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 701 by excluding lay opinion testimony grounded in the witnesses’ personal perception and experience.
2. Whether expert testimony was required as a matter of law to support a jury finding of Jones Act negligence and maritime unseaworthiness in these circumstances.
3. Whether a general verdict on multiple liability theories required a new trial where the reviewing court could not determine which theory the jury adopted.
4. Whether the evidence supported (a) any award for loss of future earning capacity based on a narrowing of economic opportunities and (b) the amount the jury awarded.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit held the trial court erred by excluding qualifying lay opinion testimony under Rule 701.
- The court held expert testimony was not required to submit at least one negligence theory (including the manner of handling/releasing the Samson line) to the jury.
- The court reversed the JMOL on liability but affirmed the order granting a new trial on liability because the general verdict prevented identifying whether the jury relied on a theory requiring expert proof.
- The court reversed the JMOL on damages because the record supported some loss of future earning capacity based on narrowed economic opportunities.
- The court affirmed the order granting a new trial on damages because the amount awarded for future earning capacity was excessive and not supported by the evidentiary record.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 701 permits lay opinion testimony that is rationally based on the witness’s perception and helpful to understanding testimony or determining a fact in issue; excluding such testimony solely because it resembles expert testimony can be an abuse of discretion.
- Expert testimony is not categorically required in maritime negligence or unseaworthiness cases; some seamanship and line-handling questions may be resolved by jurors using ordinary reasoning and admissible lay testimony.
- When a case is submitted on multiple theories and the jury returns a general verdict, an appellate court may affirm a new trial if it cannot determine whether the verdict rested on a theory that was legally or evidentially unsupported.
- Loss of future earning capacity may be supported by evidence that injuries (including psychological conditions) narrow, rather than eliminate, a plaintiff’s employment options; however, the amount awarded must be tied to record evidence and may be set aside as excessive even when some award is warranted.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that the district court improperly excluded lay opinion testimony and wrongly entered JMOL on both liability and damages, but it affirmed new trials because the general liability verdict obscured which theories supported liability and because the future-earning-capacity award amount was excessive and unsupported.


Wilburn v. Maritrans GP Inc., 139 F.3d 350 (3d Cir. 1998)