Court Opinion

ID: 9486494
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 11:49:58.780018+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:45.234523
License: Public Domain

FRANK A. KAUFMAN, Senior District Judge,
dissenting:
While the question is certainly not free from doubt, I conclude that there was sufficient evidence of complaints by other employees of similar loud noise from retarders before the occurrence in this case, that CSX knew of the same and had made attempts to reduce the noise level, and that the retarder in question was not up to standard. In the light of such evidence, the district court appropriately submitted to the jury the issue of negligence, including the component of reasonable foreseeability, and was correct in denying the interim and post-trial motions of CSX for judgment as a matter of law. Therefore, I would affirm the judgment below and respectfully dissent.