Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Nine-years-old Rush and several friends began playing near a D train. At some point during these activities, Rush fell under the train and sustained injuries that ultimately required a below-the-knee amputation of his left leg. D conducts a switching operation in Memphis, Tennessee. During the switching operation, D employees hook and unhook railcars (a process known as 'coupling') to a locomotive engine. The locomotive engine then delivers the railcars to nearby destinations. A three-person crew performs the switching operation. A 'brakeman' physically couples and uncouples the railcars at each stopping point. The 'locomotive engineer' operates the engine along the rail line. The 'conductor' oversees the entire switching operation. All three D employees are responsible for the safety of the crew and passersby. P sued D in diversity alleging common law negligence and violations of Tennessee's 'Lookout Statute,' TENN. CODE ANN. § 65-12-108. D got the verdict and P appealed. P, in part, contends that the district court erroneously permitted D to cross-examine Lockett and Moore with the interview transcripts. D counters that it utilized the interview transcripts to refresh the witnesses' memory pursuant to Rule 612 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co