Lori Guidroz-Brault v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding “the district court properly excluded the testimony of the lighting expert because it was not sufficiently fact based to be reliable on the question of the distance from which a proper lookout could have seen the sabotaged rail”
• finding locomotive engineer’s testimony on the appropriate. lookout procedure relevant because it was a key issue in the case
• the “fatal problem” with the expert’s opinion was that it “finds no support in the physical facts as described by the reports and other evidence 24 in the record”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).