--- title: "Emergency Management Expert Allowed to Opine on Public Safety Communications" meta: "og:description": "The emergency management expert was more than qualified to testify that earlier communication would have improved situational awareness" "og:title": "Emergency Management Expert Allowed to Opine on Public Safety Communications" author: "Shuva Guha Thakurta" description: "The emergency management expert was more than qualified to testify that earlier communication would have improved situational awareness" --- # Emergency Management Expert Allowed to Opine on Public Safety Communications Posted on July 31, 2026 by Shuva Guha Thakurta This case arises from the catastrophic flooding that struck Waverly, Tennessee, on August 21, 2021. Plaintiffs alleged that CSX Transportation, Inc. negligently maintained the Trace Creek Bridge, allowing water to become impounded upstream before the railroad embankment failed and released a surge of water that devastated portions of Waverly. Plaintiffs further alleged that CSX failed to notify local emergency officials of the developing conditions, depriving first responders of information that would have altered the emergency response and reduced Plaintiffs' injuries. To support that theory, Plaintiffs identified [Kristin Weivoda](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Kristin-Weivoda/1578019) to present expert testimony concerning emergency management practices, public safety communications, interagency notification, and the protective actions that reasonably could have followed earlier notification by CSX. Her report explained that she reviewed, among other materials, deposition testimony, emergency dispatch records, emergency operations plans, NOAA weather information and law enforcement reports. Applying accepted emergency management principles-including the National Incident Management System, the Incident Command System, and recognized public safety communication standards-she opined that earlier notification of the conditions observed by CSX would have provided emergency responders additional opportunities to implement protective measures before "catastrophic inundation" occurred. CSX challenged the admissibility of Weivoda's opinions on two grounds. First, it argued that Weivoda is not qualified to offer opinions expressed in her report because those opinions depend on specialized knowledge of railroad operations and the conditions observed by CSX employees at the Trace Creek Bridge. Second, it argued that her opinions are unreliable because they are contrary to the factual record underlying them. ![Emergency Management Expert Allowed to Opine on Public Safety Communications](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_07_31T200905_3121.webp) ## Emergency Management Expert Witness [Kristin Weivoda](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Kristin-Weivoda/1578019) has more than two decades of experience in emergency management, emergency medical services, emergency communications, and public-safety operations. She is a FEMA-certified instructor and has served in numerous leadership roles involving emergency planning, incident command, interagency coordination, and disaster response. [Want to know more about the challenges Kristin Weivoda has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1578019&pId=3). ## **Discussion by the Court** ### **_Qualifications_** CSX contended that Weivoda is not qualified to offer her opinions because they require specialized knowledge of railroad operations. Weivoda did not purport to offer opinions regarding railroad operating practices or the standards by which railroad employees evaluate track conditions during severe weather. Instead, Weivoda applied her emergency management expertise to opine that CSX should have directly communicated known infrastructure conditions to emergency responders. She further opined that earlier communication would have improved situational awareness, expanded opportunities for protective action, and more likely than not saved lives. Those opinions fall within Weivoda's expertise in emergency management. ### _Reliability_ CSX's second argument concerns the factual basis for Weivoda's opinions. CSX contended that her opinions are unreliable because they conflict with evidence showing that local officials had already issued warnings, called in additional personnel, and begun protective measures before the time when she believes CSX should have received additional information from CSX. That challenge does not justify exclusion. The Court has reviewed Weivoda's anticipated trial testimony and finds by a preponderance of the evidence that her opinions satisfy [Rule 702(b)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702#:~:text=Rule%20702%20sets%20forth%20the,is%20a%20relatively%20narrow%20inquiry.). Weivoda identified the facts and data on which she relied and applied her expertise to the evidence available to her. Her report explains that she reviewed deposition testimony, dispatch records, emergency operations plans, weather information, law-enforcement records before applying accepted emergency-management principles concerning incident command, interagency communication, situational awareness, and protective action. CSX argued that Weivoda reached the wrong conclusions from the materials she reviewed. It points to evidence that local officials had already undertaken many of the actions that Weivoda believes earlier communication would have prompted and contends that her opinions are therefore unreliable. Those arguments challenge the conclusions Weivoda drew from the materials she reviewed, not whether she had sufficient facts or data on which to base those conclusions. CSX's contention that Weivoda misunderstood the facts and data is fertile ground for cross-examination, but it does not authorize exclusion at trial. It will be the jury's work to determine what weight, if any, to give her testimony. Because Weivoda reliably applied those accepted emergency-management principles to the materials she reviewed, Plaintiffs have also established the requirements of Rule 702(c) and (d) by a preponderance of the evidence. ## **Held** The Court denied CSX's motion to exclude the expert testimony of Kristin Weivoda. ## **Key Takeaway** An expert may base an opinion on facts or data that the expert "has been made aware of or personally observed." Weaknesses "in the factual basis" of the resulting opinion ordinarily "bear on the weight of the evidence rather than on its admissibility." ## **Case Details:** | Case Caption: | Rigney V. CSX Transportation, Inc. | | --- | --- | | Docket Number: | 3:22cv342 | | Court Name: | United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division | | Order Date: | July 29, 2026 | --- ## **You Might Also Like** ![Emergency Management Expert Allowed to Opine on Public Safety Communications](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_07_31T200905_3121.webp) [**Emergency Management Expert Allowed to Opine on Public Safety Communications**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/emergency-management-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-public-safety-communications/emergency-management-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-public-safety-communications)![Law And Legal Expert Allowed to Opine on the Standard of Care for a Certified Financial Planner](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_07_31T175244_408.webp) [**Law And Legal Expert Allowed to Opine on the Standard of Care for a Certified Financial Planner**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/emergency-management-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-public-safety-communications/law-and-legal-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-the-standard-of-care-for-a-certified-financial-planner)![Aviation Maintenance Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Agency Relationship ](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_07_30T195621_2651.webp) [**Aviation Maintenance Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Agency Relationship **](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/emergency-management-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-public-safety-communications/aviation-maintenance-expert-was-not-allowed-to-opine-on-agency-relationship-)![Insurance Expert Partly Allowed to Opine on Insurer's Conduct](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_07_30T174321_361.webp) [**Insurance Expert Partly Allowed to Opine on Insurer's Conduct**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/emergency-management-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-public-safety-communications/insurance-expert-partly-allowed-to-opine-on-insurers-conduct)![Radiation Oncology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Risks of Alleged Exposure](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_07_29T200732_639.webp) [**Radiation Oncology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Risks of Alleged Exposure**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/emergency-management-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-public-safety-communications/radiation-oncology-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-risks-of-alleged-exposure)