Law Practice
Nov. 26, 2024
The question of who?
In Richard v. Union Pacific Railroad, the court ruled that a retired railroad engineer with 42 years of experience could qualify as an expert, despite lacking formal training in accident reconstruction. The case highlights that experience, not just formal education, is key in determining expert testimony admissibility.
The storyline of any good mystery starts with the 5 W's - Who, What, When, Where and Why. They are the questions that drive the case and lead to a solution. But of these five investigative questions, one of them serves two roles. The question of Who? This basic query certainly is central to the ultimate resolution of the case. Leading us many times to the mild-mannered butler. But more important is who is leading and guiding us on the path of this mystery, leading us to ...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In