--- title: "Railroad Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Hand Brake" meta: "og:description": "The railroad expert was barred from testifying about whether or not the hand brake in question was efficient" "og:title": "Railroad Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Hand Brake" author: "Expert Witness Profiler" description: "The railroad expert was barred from testifying about whether or not the hand brake in question was efficient" --- # Railroad Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Hand Brake Posted on April 30, 2026 by Expert Witness Profiler Plaintiff Justin W. Hedden brought suit against Toledo Peoria & Western Railway, Corp. and its corporate parent Genessee & Wyoming Railroad Services, Inc. for injuries he sustained while working on the railroad. Defendants sought an order excluding the opinions of Hedden’s expert, [John David Engle](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/John-Engle/1523935). ## **Railroad Expert Witness** [John David Engle](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/John-Engle/1523935) worked in the railroad industry for decades. Engle has a long history of working in the railroad industry and testifying as an expert witness in FELA matters. He has worked as a carman, technical instructor, training officer, and air brakes superintendent for Norfolk Southern. [Get the full story on challenges to John David Engle’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1523935&pId=3). ## **Discussion by the Court** ### **1. Opinion 1: The Hand Brake was Inefficient** Engle’s first opinion relates to whether the hand brake was “efficient.” The Court found that Engle’s expert report is devoid of any explanation of the methodology he used in reaching his opinion that the hand brake was inefficient. Engle did not inspect the hand brake at issue in this case. Moreover, he did not have a clear theory as to what made the hand brake fail to release when Hedden pulled on it with the brake stick. Not only did he lack a sufficiently reliable methodology for this opinion, but what methodology he did have reveals that his testimony would not be helpful to the jury. Engle admitted that his opinion as to the “condition of the hand brake at the time of the incident” relies “solely on Hedden’s description of the hand brake.” With no analysis of the hand brake, nor a clear theory as to why it was defective and thus inefficient, Engle’s opinion here boils down to “his belief that Plaintiff’s account of the incident is true.” ### **2. Opinion 2: TPW Failed to Inspect and Maintain the Railcars** In his second opinion, Engle asserted that TPW failed to inspect and maintain the railcars “because the freight car hand brake did not function as intended.” First, there is literally no explanation or analysis in Engle’s report as to how he arrived at that opinion. In other words, it is entirely conclusory. He simply stated that, because the hand brake did not function as intended, TPW must have been failing to inspect and maintain the railcars. There is no discussion, for example, of what would constitute proper and regular inspections or an analysis of TPW’s maintenance protocol. Second, like the previous opinion, this opinion appears to be wholly based on Hedden’s account of the Incident. It includes no mention or citation to any further investigation by Engle of additional sources, such as TPW’s regular inspection or maintenance practices for railcars. Since his opinion here rests “solely on his acceptance of Plaintiff’s account, the testimony amounted to nothing more than an invitation to the jury to believe his assessment of Plaintiff’s truthfulness” and is thus inadmissible. Third, since the Court has already found that he cannot testify as to whether the brake was efficient or had a defect, and this opinion builds directly on that premise, this opinion now has no admissible support and is thus itself inadmissible. ### **3. Opinion 3: The Railcar Involved in the Incident Was Not Properly Identified and Therefore Not Properly Inspected** Engle’s third opinion is that the freight car involved in the Incident was not properly identified and therefore could not have been properly inspected. Engle primarily relied on two key data points in arriving at this opinion. The first is that Hedden and Cardine were told to move the train to the lift, which required them to finish building the train after the Incident and then moved it to its next destination, which made it difficult to figure out which railcar was involved in the Incident. Indeed, he cited to Meyer’s deposition where Meyer admitted that, because he was uncertain as to which railcar was involved, he had to narrow it down to five cars and inspect all of them. The second was that the railcar involved in the Incident was a lighter color than any of the ones Meyer inspected. Starting with his methodology, Engle’s reasoning relies on a few different sources, as well as his experience in railyard operations. Engle has experience in building and moving trains in railyards and can testify as to how this can make identifying a particular railcar difficult. While he partially walked back his second reason for this opinion, the opinion still finds support in his first reason: that the continued building and movement of the train made Meyer’s identification of the correct railcar questionable. A railcar could match the description and still be the wrong car, and Engle is qualified to explain why. A railyard is a complicated and complex environment. It will be helpful to jurors to have testimony about that environment so the jury can assess whether Defendants did in fact inspect the wrong railcar. ### **4. Opinion 4: The Inspection of the Hand Brake was Deficient because Meyer did not use a Brake Stick on It** Engle’s fourth opinion is that the inspection of the railcar was deficient because Meyer did not use the brake stick Hedden was using, or indeed, any brake stick, on the hand brake as part of the inspection. Defendants alleged that Engle lacked sufficient expertise specifically about brake sticks to make this opinion that a proper inspection would have used one. Engle’s opinion relates primarily to what constitutes a proper inspection. Engle asserts that a proper inspection would have recreated the conditions of the Incident, which, in this case, would have meant using a brake stick on the hand brake. Even if Defendants are right that Engle is not sufficiently experienced with brake stick usage specifically, that does not mean his opinion that a proper inspection would have used one to recreate the conditions of the Incident is invalid. He has sufficient expertise in railyard operations to testify as to what he believes would have constituted a proper inspection and has provided sufficiently reliable reasoning for this opinion. ### **5. Opinion 5: TPW failed to Properly Train Its Employees** Engle’s last opinion is that TPW failed to properly train certain employees, including Hedden, on how to perform interchange inspections, including specifically on the hand brake and air brake systems and the associated riggings. Defendants asserted that Engle’s opinion here is essentially insisting that transportation employees like Hedden be trained on brake systems like mechanical employees and that, in any event, Hedden was not following the safety rules in the events leading up to the Incident. Unlike Engle’s opinion regarding the hand brake, his opinion on training “does not require Engle’s physical examination of the hand brake” and Defendants’ arguments do not suggest that his “methodology is unreliable.” Instead, they focus more on his outcome, asserting that the high level of training Engle asserts is necessary is “a nonsensical proposition.” But the Court, as gatekeeper, is “primarily concerned with methodology, not conclusions.” ## **Held** The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of John David Engle. ## **Key Takeaway** The Court focuses on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions they generate. The goal of the [Rule 702](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702#:~:text=Rule%20702%20sets%20forth%20the,is%20a%20relatively%20narrow%20inquiry.)inquiry “is to assure that experts employ the same ‘intellectual rigor’ in their courtroom testimony as would be employed by an expert in the relevant field.” ## **Case Details:** --- ## **You Might Also Like** ![Construction Management Expert Allowed to Opine on Project Delays](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-30T212052.222.jpg) [**Construction Management Expert Allowed to Opine on Project Delays**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/railroad-expert-was-not-allowed-to-opine-on-hand-brake/construction-management-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-project-delays)![Railroad Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Hand Brake](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-30T200224.043.jpg) [**Railroad Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Hand Brake**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/railroad-expert-was-not-allowed-to-opine-on-hand-brake/railroad-expert-was-not-allowed-to-opine-on-hand-brake)![Forensic Accounting Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Household Services](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-30T180651.514.jpg) [**Forensic Accounting Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Household Services**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/railroad-expert-was-not-allowed-to-opine-on-hand-brake/forensic-accounting-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-household-services)![Law Enforcement Expert Allowed to Opine on Penological Practices](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480.jpg) [**Law Enforcement Expert Allowed to Opine on Penological Practices**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/railroad-expert-was-not-allowed-to-opine-on-hand-brake/law-enforcement-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-penological-practices)![Civil Engineering Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on the Cause of Fall](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-28T153745.838.jpg) [**Civil Engineering Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on the Cause of Fall**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/railroad-expert-was-not-allowed-to-opine-on-hand-brake/civil-engineering-expert-was-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-cause-of-fall)