Vito Tufariello v. Long Island Railroad Company, Docket No. 05-1945-Cv

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that no expert testimony was required in the case of hearing loss from a railroad failing to provide a worker with ear protection
• holding that “causal link” between “hearing loss and repeated exposure to noise so loud that it causes physical pain or ear-ringing” is “widely known”
• holding that expert testimony is not needed to establish causation when “there is a generally understood causal connection between physical phenomena ... and the alleged injury that would be obvious to laymen”
• holding that a railroad employee could bring a negligence claim against his employer for hearing loss resulting from long-term exposure to train horns because no FRSA preclusion existed, as the FRSA only prescribed minimum sound levels for warning devices on trains
• holding that a railroad employee could bring a negligence claim against his employer for hearing loss resulting from long-term exposure to train horns because no FRSA preclusion existed, as the FRSA only prescribed minimum sound levels for warning devices on trains
• noting that the OSH Act does not preclude a negligence action for harm caused by employer’s failure to equip employee with hearing protection

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).