Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

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.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.