UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JEFFREY TODD KNUDSON, 

Plaintiff, 

Case No. 14-14854 

vs. 

HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH 

M/V AMERICAN SPIRIT, et al., 

Defendants. 

____________________________/ 

ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS 

IN LIMINE [ECF Nos. 231, 232, 233, 234]

This matter has come before the court on defendants’ motion in 

limine to exclude evidence or argument regarding punitive damages [ECF 

No. 231]; defendants’ renewed motion in limine to exclude evidence of 

future economic losses [ECF No. 232]; defendants’ motion in limine to 

exclude certain trial deposition testimony of Natalie Klein [ECF No. 233]; 

and plaintiff’s motion in limine to exclude evidence created by Medaire, Inc. 

[ECF No. 234]. The court does not believe that oral argument will aid its 

determination of these motions and thereby rules on the briefs as 

described below. 

Defendants move to exclude evidence, testimony or argument 

regarding the financial information of American as irrelevant to punitive 
- 2 - 

damages related to plaintiff’s maintenance claim. Maintenance and cure 

is an obligation under maritime law that a maritime employer has to its 

employees. While Liberty is designated as plaintiff’s employer, American 

took on several obligations typical of an employer. For example, American 

trained and supervised plaintiff in the performance of his duties on the 

American vessel in which he served. At the time of his injury, plaintiff was 

being supervised by the officers of the vessel, who were all American 

employees. Most importantly for purposes of this motion, after his injury 

American paid plaintiff’s maintenance payments and allegedly made the 

decision to withhold payment of a higher amount in order to force plaintiff to 

agree to arbitrate his claims. 

As it relates to plaintiff’s maintenance claim, it is the conduct of 

American that forms the basis for the request for punitive damages. The 

court finds that American should be treated as plaintiff’s employer for 

purposes of asserting punitive damages. As such, American’s financial 

condition is relevant to plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages. 

Defendants next argue that the court should limit any evidence, 

testimony or argument that would suggest an amount or calculation of 

punitive damages that would exceed a 1:1 ratio to any compensatory 

damages. In support, defendants cite to the Supreme Court’s decision in 
- 3 - 

Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (2008), where the Court 

applied a 1:1 ratio of punitive to compensatory damages. The Baker ratio 

has been applied to maritime cases involving environmental contamination 

or vessel collisions. Other courts have determined that the 1:1 ratio does 

not apply to certain maintenance and cure actions where the shipowner’s 

conduct was more reprehensible than Exxon’s behavior. See Clausen v. 

Icicle Seafoods, 272 P.3d 827 (2012). The court finds this portion of 

defendants’ motion to be premature and not the appropriate subject of a 

motion in limine. If there is a jury verdict as to punitive damages, 

defendants may bring an appropriate motion at that time. 

Defendants’ motion in limine is DENIED, subject to appropriate 

objections at trial. 

Defendants renew their motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. 

Michael Thomson regarding plaintiff’s future economic losses based on the 

court’s statement that whether plaintiff would have advanced from his entry 

level rating with Liberty and thus earned higher wages in the future was 

speculative (ECF No. 226). Defendants argue the court, as gatekeeper of 

expert opinion, should not permit Dr. Thomson to submit unsubstantiated 

and speculative assertions to the jury at trial. 

Dr. Thomson will be permitted to give his opinion based on the 
- 4 - 

evidence presented to him. If there is evidence to support the conclusion 

that plaintiff’s advancement, absent injury, was all but assured, then Dr. 

Thomson can give his opinion regarding future economic losses based on 

such evidence. 

Defendants’ motion in limine is DENIED, subject to appropriate 

objections at trial. 

Defendants move to exclude certain testimony of lay witness Natalie 

Klein. Federal Rule of Evidence 602 requires lay witnesses to testify from 

their own personal knowledge. Rule 802 makes testimony based on 

hearsay evidence inadmissible. Natalie Klein is plaintiff’s friend and 

neighbor. A large amount of Mrs. Klein’s trial deposition testimony is 

based on the hearsay statements of the plaintiff. For example, Mrs. Klein 

was not present on the vessel when plaintiff was injured, nor was she with 

him immediately afterward, but she testified about how the accident 

occurred and where plaintiff stayed immediately following the accident. 

She testified she knew this information because the plaintiff had told her 

about it. Similarly, she testified about plaintiff’s injuries, pain, and ability to 

perform physical tasks after the accident based on what he told her. The 

same is true for her knowledge of plaintiff’s emotional and mental health 

treatment, his ability to survive on the money defendants paid him after the 
- 5 - 

accident, and the fact that he enjoyed his previous employment in the 

Pacific fisheries. 

The court orders that Mrs. Klein’s deposition should be purged of any 

testimony not based on her firsthand knowledge of what she witnessed. 

To the extent that Mrs. Klein has firsthand knowledge of plaintiff before and 

after the accident, her testimony about the symptoms he displays, how his 

injuries have changed his life, and any other observations are admissible. 

Defendants’ motion in limine is GRANTED in part and DENIED in 

part. 

Plaintiff moves to exclude certain evidence created by MedAire, a 

company that provides medical advisory services to vessels. The 

evidence at issue is certain audio recordings and notes made by MedAire 

personnel contacted by crew mates on the vessel hours after plaintiff’s 

accident. MedAire spoke to the Captain and the first mate, John Onley, 

about the accident and plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff specifically objects to 

the portion of the evidence stating that he “fell off the chair landing on the 

dock, approximately a 12-20 foot fall. He landed on his feet, ‘stuck a 

perfect 10 landing . . . .’” This report was shown to the medical experts 

who then repeat some of this information in their own reports. Plaintiff 

seeks to exclude references to the MedAire evidence because it is hearsay 
- 6 -

and is likely to confuse the issues and mislead the jury. 

The court previously addressed these same arguments and denied 

plaintiff’s prior motion in limine on the record on March 18, 2019 (ECF No. 

195, pg. 21). For the same reasons, the court DENIES plaintiff’s motion in 

limine, subject to the authentication of such evidence and appropriate 

objections at trial. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 25, 2020 

s/George Caram Steeh

GEORGE CARAM STEEH 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record 

on March 25, 2020, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

s/Brianna Sauve 

Deputy Clerk