ran a red light and rear ended a stationary brakes locomotive there was no real issue on it that c s sexless negligent for running the red light the issues the trial were causation and damages calhoun testified that at the moment of impact he was in the lead locomotive of the train that was rear ended it was a train that i believe was filled steps down to a lower level where there's a toilet now steel bulkhead door that goes into the nose of the locomotive he testified that he was in he had one foot forward stepping down at the moment stepping b ack actors who mounted said he would have taken a corrective step backwards so he would get one step forward taking the corrective step back but then to springs that they completely ignore the springs would gone backwards also and then would have snapped forward flinging him down the stairs because he testified he was looking his weaning forward so he would have been if long forward into a rotational force and they and you get pushed forward right but the but the compliment to that is that if you're if you're sitting in the back of the cab or something suddenly drives forward you're pushed back in your seat for it so here so this is a case where there's this sudden lurch forward and that s pushed him back yes and as mr nicol was the conductor who was seated in the locomotive said it whipped him back and forth he bounced back but there was a desk in front of him and he said it whipped him back and forth because remember  confused about this residual that whatever you're saying it's it's not like a normal river or take train over here we time a kind of chicago you know who would train stops and it stops and then there's understand the springs and how they do but i guess it's like anything else a car has certain suspension and things like that to make it really hard bounce you're saying there's some kind of a bounce in the engine i'm  administration inspector testified and he was a c s x supervisor on the fate of the accident he testified to even during normal operations when there coupling cars together in the freight yards and they roll  slow speed into a brake locomotive and then they automatically couple when they when they collide that causes a shutter a shutter and so what i'm saying is it makes sense that there was a whatever you want to call it force when it goes down with it it would seem as it moves up to the front of the train each whatever you want to call it a collision or something as it moves up is diminished  it was if you look at page eighty five the photo from the national transportation safety board the cars were going in all different kind of directions it wasn't they want to make it seem as though it was like a mother pushing a baby in a stroller  hadn't a mechanical engineer was he asked you didn't see analyze he said he testified based on his eyeball guesstimates dad it moved forward seven inches in three hundred a why didn't you and he said i didn't have to i have the video from the i have the video from the forward facing camera so their position was ignore the force that bounced him back and forth that whipped mr nippy ecan forth because there's a shutter just ignore it and the s not a scientific methodology because factor sue minus their expert his methodology was figure out what happened figure out what it would do four levels and when the vertebrae he had a great one which meant twenty five percent displacement of vertebrae one of the vertebrae was was jut forward towards the nerve but nobody and then after the it left right forward backward and actually i don't think any of the doctors testified what it did they just said it made that condition symptomatic what this is need to make a condition symptomatic it must have post accident pain i don't recall the testimony that it would judge it forward a six more centimeters or anything that small why why wasn't the why wasn't the pain of media how long did it take for the pain to emerge it took a day and two or three doctors testified that it's not unusual what's for a spinal injury to not become painful until be i don't want to say it was incurable but it was constant he based on at least with the doctor to say this is something that you know when you're talking about pain and various names of pain medicine and stuff it was pretty heavy wasn't he he had pain from time to time and he had of fike it and i think he stopped the prescription for morphine a year before the accident and he testified that he never lost a day of work he had he what he did have was a herniated disc in two thousand and nine that was treated with epidural injections in two thousand and nine two thousand and ten and then went back to work and didn't miss a day of work because of  this permeated disk in two thousand and one two thousand to from time to time and after he was treated for the herniated disc irons i didn't express myself adequately from time to time from two thousand  when he went back to work after treatment for her needed this he did take by could then for a period of time he did take morphine and i believe the satellite had a year before and he didn't miss any work but none of the the expert i'll i absolutely yeah i wish the judge would have its head up biomechanical expert would have said wait you're not analyzing the springs you're not analyzing whether or not their expert testified it was not physically possible on this planet for him to knock down the stairs when you hit there with their mechanical engineer said the force of the collision could move one  a locomotive forward seven inches a fully break two hundred twelve ton locomotive but it couldn't knock somebody down stairs going to springs yes they should have had an axe independent expert would have demolished their mechanical engineering their bio thank you your honor i don't want to belabor things that we've already said in our preflight what i'd like to do aside from answering any questions of course is just point out a few things that occurred to me as i was sort of preparing for the arguments that are in are br and one of the overarching things which i wish we had done differently is the brief sort of not at all clear as to where these arguments are adequately preserved and you know i know that when you have to write your opinion you'll go back and that'll probably be the first thing you do is where are these points raised and preserved and with it the point we were just discussing that the opinion about whether he could have fallen forward that's been a moving target since the beginning i think if you look at their motion in women which is really the only thing they're entitled to be complaining about here the only thing they criticize doctorates minus for was not taking into account fact that she was leaning forward and his foot was in the air there was none of this stuff about whether or not it was balancing which by the way is the principal theme of their opening prefix is that it's about vertical motion there is nothing about that now we hear now it's not the vertical motion it's a back and forth motion so they've been basically shifting their theory every time someone calls them on the other theory so i would it you know i think you already have a pretty good sense of the propriety of the testimony begin with but i just figure since you have to actually write the opinion that you would wanna take a look at whether the point of the raising today have actually been preserve guess again this is nothing they raise below or ask him about in this deposition but i think if you look at the video use and i think you know from my high school physics it would be sort of a gradual slow that was stop you know i i get the point there springs but you know this is sort of completely no he wasn't really presented with that theory to analyze and you know it doesn't look certainly from the video which is what he did analyze there's no snapping back you know this was the on the video you can barely see it move following much less rejected it and they listened to his his conductor and i think they didn't believe him or what was the video specifically and the way you know if the court's interested the what he did was he looked at at the surroundings you know the background from these from the original video and he was able to locate the exemplar train and video in exactly the same starting point and then he looks he says to himself where is a marker in this first in this first video the original that shows me where the train moved to and he identified there was a diagonal plate phone pole or something and that is actually where the train sort of just goes beyond the pole during that one moment of movement so then what he has to do with the example i said ok let's move the train and videotape that until we get to the point where we have brought it even with where it was in the original and then he went out and measured on the tracks how far did it move so first date did it i think it was three inches measured it so and i think it went ahead a few inches and that's and then it stops and that's all you just suddenly i think if you look at the video it just looks like it's sort of it's it's such a small movement to begin with it looks like it just sort of coast to a stop as you would expect something with you know a heavy object with friction to eventually slow to a stop after it didn't push from behind by force how did you do do you don't need to do it all he was trying to do was measure the distance then he could use then he could use standard equations to calculate the force because you're starting she knew how much time it moved back to stand so he was able i don't have the reed watching the video and probably the jury saw it because i had stopped suddenly that the momentum would push him out for it's possible yeah but that's when that really wasn't first of all i to repeat one thing we did say in the brief i think all of this would be a subject for cross examination it's not a reason for saying he's so unreliable that he shouldn't be allowed to testify at all and then as i say it wasn't really realistically kind of  jury distinguish between these rival expert witnesses well there was when you're talking about the physics of the accident there was no rivalry forces involved and no experts on war on the forces even if we had the person who measured the distance they didn't do that and we had a person who testified that as a matter of physics equipment happened this way and he also why couldn't it happen this way if you're not sure about whether the train stopped after additional seven or nine inch lurch if you don't know whether it stopped suddenly or not you know whether there my understanding is to two days to parties including the pictures and his testimony were before the jury and subject to direct cross examination yes your honor you know i'm sort of curious about the first sentence of your the jury had every reason to think that and they said well you know he did and you know we all know that when you're for a big company there's medical coverage and there's workers comp and there are kind of other stuff that if you get injured you have some there was this rewriting collision and i somersault that down the steps and two days later i started feeling this pain and you know lo and behold the doctor said it's not the condition you had before it's a it's a condition that was dormant before and so presto now you can have the surgery and you've got a good feel of claim to pay for it that's their theory i theory is the converse that it didn't happen the way he said it couldn't have happened the way he said there was  original testimony by his conductor that he was already downstairs when it happened there were a lot of inconsistency in both of their testimonies both of them sued us yeah i see he's got a suit going somewhere and he did too we won that one also the because of i think they have their theories didn't makes they didn't hold up when commonsense jurors took a look at well what is your argument that he he had the surgery really to correct his preexisting spinal problem and he wasn't injured at all the action and our theory is that he was not injured in the  we don't even know if he fell in the absence so well as well as his incentive to argue that he had been injured well if he had negligence is conceded right it's a the railroad wasn't responsible so i do argument is he had to attribute his spinal pain to the to the accident and then to get in order to have his became symptomatic he told mr calhoun told the national transportation safety board under oath that he was not down the stairs by the collision so this was not something and then he said the same thing in his report one i think it was a couple days after the accident they called them in that they were op up on it they were examining it pretty quickly and he gave the statement to the railroad the same day saying he was knocked down the stairs by the accident another couple of points cross examination is not a substitute for expert testimony that doesn't see it as five the requirements of daughter and yes they say  shaky expert testimony if you've got shaky add expert testimony sometimes it qualifies under doctor but you get to cross examine so i put on expert testimony do they not they put on expert testimony science is coming in but it was federal court you never believe it and boster who he had he you know he used he brought a neck sampler train out to the area of the accident and yet he said he located it to try to get a pretty good he said they had a pretty good idea that it was located where th mr callum's locomotive was was at the time he actually a pretty good idea that's not a mechanical engineering term i ever heard of and then he said when it telephone pole and you look at the video and you can see you see that's why i thought i ad his office us software program full photo modeler where you can take a video in pictures and you can determine distances moves so but he did he he said they estimated that this was how far