This case stemmed from an incident that occurred at Oslo Gardermoen Airport on August 23, 2019. Plaintiff Susan Hardy had flown with United Airlines from New Orleans to New Jersey. From there, she boarded a connecting flight to Oslo, Norway, operated by Defendant Scandinavian Airlines System. According to her claims, she fell while disembarking in Oslo due to a five-to-six-inch gap between the aircraft door and the passenger boarding bridge (PBB), which caused her to suffer injuries.

Plaintiff engaged expert Matthew G. Robinson, as an “aviation safety expert, accident investigator and reconstructionist.”

Robinson was asked “to determine the causes of injury to” Plaintiff. He reached four conclusions: (1) The Defendant “violated requirements to ensure” the vertical gap between the aircraft’s floor and the PBB was equal to the lower lip of the aircraft doorsill, providing a level boarding surface; (2) The Defendant “violated International requirements to report” and investigate Plaintiff’s injury; (3) The Defendant’s “failure to warn passengers of the” gap between the aircraft floor and the PBB “led to” Plaintiff’s injury; and (4) The Defendant’s failure to conduct a safety investigation is clear evidence of “a pathological and/or bureaucratic organizational culture.

Scandinavian Airlines System filed a motion in limine to limit or exclude the testimony of Robinson.

Aviation Safety Expert Witness

Matthew G. Robinson, ATP, CFI-I has been the President of the Southern California Safety Institute (“SCSI”) since 2013. Robinson teaches courses in Witness Interviews, Photo-documentation, ICAO requirements, and Evidence Collection and Preservation among others. His work at SCSI also includes instruction on Safety Management Systems and Human Factors.

Since 2008, Robinson has also conducted technical investigations and provided analysis, reports and testimony in the litigation arena for Robson Forensic, Inc. and now for his own company, Flight Forensics.

Robinson is a Certified Human Factors Analysis and Classification Professional. He also has a master’s degree in aviation systems safety from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.

Get the full story on challenges to Matthew Robinson’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.

Discussion by the Court

Defendant did not contest Robinson’s qualifications as an aviation safety expert; he clearly is an expert and will be allowed to testify in this area. Instead, Defendant filed a motion to exclude his first and third opinions because they are based on unreliable methodologies. Defendant also argued that Robinson’s fourth opinion should be excluded because (1) the opinion did not follow a reliable methodology, (2) there was an analytical gap between the opinion and its basis, and (3) the opinion was unduly prejudicial.

Robinson May Not Offer his First Opinion that Defendant Violated a “Requirement” that a Level Boarding Surface be Provided

Defendant moved to exclude Robinson’s opinion that Defendant “violated requirements to ensure the vertical gap between the aircraft cabin floor and [PBB] was equal to the lower lip of the aircraft doorsill.”

Defendant argued that “too great an analytical gap exists between Robinson’s opinions and the underlying facts” because Robinson based his opinion on the Federal Aviation Administration’s (“FAA”) Advisory Circular No. 150/5220-21C (the “FAA Advisory Circular”). Defendant challenged Plaintiff’s reliance on this document, emphasizing that it held no legal authority in Oslo.

In response, Plaintiff acknowledged that “the FAA Advisory Circular is not binding on [Defendant] under European law.” Nevertheless, Plaintiff maintained that the FAA Advisory Circular “is an internationally recognized best practice and technical benchmark.” In a supplement to his expert report, Robinson himself conceded that the FAA Advisory Circular is “advisory,” “informational,” and “not regulatory.”

Given that the FAA Advisory Circular is not binding under European law and is expressly “advisory/informational” and “not regulatory,” the Court ruled that Robinson could not testify that Defendant violated a “requirement” prohibiting a vertical gap between the aircraft door and the PBB. However, the Court also held that Robinson’s opinion on the matter was not entirely unreliable. He was permitted to testify, based on his expertise, about the types and functioning of PBBs, the best practices concerning the height of a PBB relative to aircraft doors, whether Defendant’s actions aligned with those best practices, and the measured distance of the vertical gap on the flight in question.

In short, the Court concluded that Robinson’s opinion regarding the gap should be challenged through cross-examination, the introduction of opposing evidence, and clear jury instructions on the burden of proof—not through a Daubert motion.

Robinson May Offer his Third Opinion on the Cause of Plaintiff’s Injuries

The Defendant moved to exclude Robinson’s opinion that Plaintiff’s fall resulted from (1) the height difference between the aircraft door and the PBB, and (2) Defendant’s failure to warn Plaintiff of this height difference.

The Defendant sought to exclude Robinson’s causation opinions, arguing that he improperly relied on an unsworn interview with the Plaintiff rather than her later, contradictory sworn deposition testimony. During the March 10, 2025 interview, the Plaintiff told Robinson that the flight crew failed to warn passengers about the gap between the aircraft door and the passenger boarding bridge (PBB), and she also described how the accident occurred. Robinson’s expert report, dated March 13, 2025, reflected this account.

However, during her deposition on April 17, 2025—about a month later—the Plaintiff testified that she could not recall whether the crew issued any warning or how she had fallen.

The Defendant contended that Robinson’s decision to credit unsworn testimony over sworn testimony “improperly infringes on the role of the trier of fact.” Despite this, the Court ruled that Robinson’s opinion was not rendered unreliable merely because it partially relied on his interview with the Plaintiff.

Whether Robinson relied upon adequate information goes to the weight to be assigned to his testimony, as it involved the bases and sources upon which he relied in reaching his conclusions in this case. The difference between Plaintiff’s recall during Robinson’s interview and during her deposition “may be attacked on cross-examination, but the Court cannot say that the [reliance on Plaintiff’s interview] reached the level of ‘altered facts and speculation’ designed to bolster Plaintiff’s position.”

Robinson May Not Offer his Fourth Opinion on Defendant’s Organizational Culture

The Defendant moved to exclude Robinson’s fourth opinion that “Defendant’s failure to conduct a safety Investigation and provide safety recommendations is clear evidence of a pathological and/or bureaucratic organizational culture.”

Quoting the Handbook of Aviation Human Factors (the “Handbook”), Robinson included in his report the statement that pathological organizations handle anomalies or problems through suppression, which “does not make the problem go away.”

Despite Robinson’s education, work experience, and certification as an HFACS Professional, the Court found his qualifications insufficient to support an expert opinion on the Defendant’s organizational safety culture. His formal training in this area amounted to, at most, twenty-four hours over three days.

The Court noted that Robinson relied solely on three points to support his opinion: the Defendant’s failure to investigate the Plaintiff’s incident, its failure to address the gap between the aircraft door and the PBB, and the Handbook in support of his organizational safety culture opinion. As a result, the Court concluded that even if Robinson were qualified to testify on organizational safety culture, his opinion in this case lacked reliability.

During his deposition, Robinson failed to identify specific evidence backing his conclusions. He did not refer to any materials reflecting the Defendant’s actual operations, corporate culture, or established patterns and practices. Ultimately, his opinion appeared to rest entirely on his interpretation of the Handbook and the absence of a post-incident investigation.

To add to that, the Court held that the probative value of Robinson’s opinion that Defendant’s corporate culture caused the Plaintiff’s injuries is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice against Defendant, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, and wasting time.

Held

The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant Scandinavian Airlines System’s motion in limine to limit or exclude the testimony of Matthew G. Robinson.

Key Takeaways:

The number of sources on which an expert may reasonably rely is virtually infinite and such sources include interviews and general knowledge or experience.

Cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof is the proper means of attacking Robinson’s opinion regarding the gap between the aircraft floor and the PBB, not a Daubert motion.

Case Details:

Case Caption:	Hardy V. Scandinavian Airlines System
Docket Number:	2:21cv1591
Court Name:	United States District Court, Louisiana Eastern
Order Date:	June 23, 2025

Category: Aviation Safety Expert Witness

Aviation Safety Expert’s Opinion on Organizational Culture Excluded

Aviation Safety Expert’s Opinion on Organizational Culture Excluded