Paul Burke v. Air Serv International, Inc.
401 U.S. App. D.C. 478
| D.C. Cir. | 2012Background
- Burke, a former British soldier, was wounded in an ambush in Afghanistan while working for a private security contractor.
- He sued LBG and Air Serv for negligent security procedures and equipment; he did not sue his employer USPI.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, on alternative grounds including lack of expert testimony under DC law.
- DC choice-of-law rules were applied, determining that DC substantive law governs the negligence claim.
- DC law requires expert testimony to prove the standard of care in security-related negligence cases, because the standards are beyond lay knowledge.
- The court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment, holding Burke needed expert proof and that Erie doctrine did not require disregarding the DC rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert testimony is required to prove the standard of care | Burke argues no expert needed under common knowledge | Air Serv and LBG contend DC law requires expert testimony | Expert testimony is required under DC law |
| Whether DC expert-rule is preempted by Rule 702 under Erie | Rule 702 controls and preempts DC rule | DC rule can coexist with Rule 702; Erie applies | DC rule not preempted; Erie requires applying DC rule |
| Whether application of a state rule under Erie would be outcome-determinative | Not outcome-determinative; ERIE should not force DC rule | Federal court should apply state substantive policy | Applying DC expert rule is outcome-determinative and required |
| Whether Burke’s Western-film argument supports no expert testimony | Every juror can learn standard from Westerns | Westerns are irrelevant to modern security standards | Western films do not establish the standard of care; expert testimony required |
Key Cases Cited
- Briggs v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 481 F.3d 839 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (expert testimony often required for safety/security negligence)
- Godfrey v. Iverson, 559 F.3d 569 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (limits on necessity of expert proof in certain supervisory contexts)
- Beard v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 587 A.2d 195 (D.C. App. 1991) (dissent cited on expert testimony in safety contexts)
- Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (S. Ct. 1965) (Erie framework for substantive vs. procedural law)
- Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415 (S. Ct. 1996) (outcome-determinative effect in Erie analysis)
- Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 130 S. Ct. 1431 (S. Ct. 2010) (role of Federal Rules in Erie framework)
- Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (S. Ct. 1988) (tests for when federal rules control and state rules apply)
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (S. Ct. 1941) (choice of law in diversity cases)