Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Progress Rail Services Corporation

May 3, 2013

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
PROGRESS RAIL SERVICES CORPORATION,
DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Laurie Smith Camp Chief United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on five motions: (1) the Motion in Limine submitted by Plaintiff Union Pacific Railroad Company ("Union Pacific") to exclude expert testimony of Edward Cox and Norman Hooper (the "Cox/Hooper Motion") (Filing No. 222); (2) the Motion in Limine submitted by Defendant Progress Rail Services, Inc. ("Progress Rail") to exclude expert testimony of Hans Iwand (the "Iwand Motion") (Filing No. 227); (3) Union Pacific's Motion in Limine to exclude discussion, testimony, argument or colloquy on a wide variety of subjects in eight general categories ("Union Pacific's Omnibus Motion") (Filing No. 243); (4) Progress Rail's Motion in Limine to exclude certain categories of evidence ("Progress Rail's Omnibus Motion") (Filing No. 245); and (5) Union Pacific's Request for Oral Argument and Evidentiary Hearing on the Iwand Motion (Filing No. 248).

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 14, 2007, Union Pacific train CBMRV-12 (the "First Train") derailed near DeWitt, Iowa. The First Train was composed of 135 loaded coal cars, including railcar CWEX 1538 (the "First Railcar"), owned by a third party. Union Pacific's investigators concluded that the First Train derailed due to the failure of an axle on the First Railcar. Union Pacific alleges that Progress Rail mounted a roller bearing on the axle in April 2006 without properly inspecting the axle for corrosion pits, removing the corrosion pits, checking the axle for cracks, and treating the axle in compliance with industry standards, thereby allowing the axle to fracture.

On January 14, 2010, Union Pacific train 3CEBJK-14 (the "Second Train") derailed near Martin Bay, Nebraska. The Second Train was composed of 123 loaded cars, including railcar JECX 1409 (the "Second Railcar"), owned by a third party. Union Pacific's investigators concluded that the Second Train derailed due to the failure of an axle on the Second Railcar. Union Pacific alleges that Progress Rail mounted a roller bearing on the axle approximately 11 months before the derailment, and failed to inspect the axle for corrosion pits, remove the corrosion pits, and refurbish an axle on the Second Railcar in accordance with industry standards, thereby allowing the axle to fracture.

Union Pacific contends that Progress Rail's negligence was the direct and proximate cause of the two derailments, causing Union Pacific damages in the sum of $947,251.36 for the DeWitt, Iowa, derailment and $4,191,563.65 for the Martin Bay, Nebraska, derailment.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Fed. R. Evid. 702 provides:

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:

(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;

(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;

(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and

(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.