Railroad Expert’s Failure-to-Warn Testimony Admitted

This action arises from a train derailment in Lund, Utah on July 15, 2021, in which Plaintiffs Larry Keatley, Wirgil Rask, and Matthew Lindley (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), were operating the train as Defendant’s employees.

Plaintiffs asserted a claim against Defendant under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act and alleged that the Plaintiffs’ injuries were due to the negligence of the Defendant UPR in failing to provide Plaintiffs with safe tools and equipment and a safe place to work.

Defendants sought to exclude the entire testimony of Plaintiffs’ expert witness, Alan Pagels. Defendant also sought to exclude the portion of Plaintiffs’ expert witness Charles Culver‘s testimony that relates to his opinion on Defendant’s failure to stop or slow the train.

Railroad Expert Witnesses

Alan Pagels is a practicing railroad safety consultant with 45 years of railroad industry experience, of which he served 8 years and 5 months with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) as a Track Safety Inspector and Specialist – Rail Integrity.

Discover more cases with Alan Pagels as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report.

Charles L. Culver is an expert in train handling and railroad operations in federal and district courts throughout the United States.

He been certified as a designated supervisor of locomotive engineers, a freight conductor, and a locomotive engineer and has been qualified as an instructor of Operating Rules, Safety Rules, and Air Brake and Train Handling Rules applicable to trainmen and engineers through his training with Union Pacific Railroad.

Want to know more about the challenges Charles Culver has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

Discussion by the Court

Alan Pagels

Pagels is set to testify to “issues of liability and causation involved in the subject incident, including but not limited to track conditions where the subject incident occurred.”

According to Pagels, Defendant failed to comply with 49 C.F.R. § 213.33, the regulation prescribing appropriate drainage for roadbeds. Moreover, Defendant also did not comply with FRA Track Safety Standards and its own standards for conducting special inspections for severe weather, despite the weather alerts issued by the National Weather Service.

Analysis

The Court held that Pagels’ testimony is admissible to the extent that it relates to Plaintiffs’ claims that Defendant negligently placed the track and failed to warn Plaintiffs as to the risk of flooding and derailment at the derailment track location.

Pagels can testify to the general requirements for waterflow set forth by the FRA and whether the geographic location posed an unreasonable risk of flooding to the extent that such testimony relates to Plaintiffs’ allegation that Defendant knew or should have known the track location was subject to flooding. Pagels’ testimony regarding Defendant’s failure to comply with FRA Track Safety Standards and Defendant’s internal standards for conducting special inspections for severe weather is only admissible to the extent that it relates to Defendant’s failure to warn of imminent flooding or the risk of derailment.

Moreover, he may testify that Defendant is “responsible for determining where its crews operate trains and is responsible for ensuring its crews have a safe place to work” to the extent it relates to Plaintiffs’ claim of negligent track placement or failure to warn.

However, Pagels may not testify to the specific requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 213.33 and Defendant’s alleged failure to comply with such requirements, as negligence per se was not alleged in the operative complaint.

Similarly, Pagels may not testify to Defendant’s alleged failure to maintain adequate track drainage, nor may Pagels opine as to Defendant’s ability to design, construct, and maintain track in compliance with Defendant’s internal engineering standards.

Charles Culver

In his report, Culver opined:

• Plaintiffs were performing their duties according to railroad rules and “were not at fault in this incident;”

• The train crew was not warned of “conditions ahead” and had “no reason to anticipate the track conditions they would encounter;”

• The train’s configuration “increased the dangers associated with emergency braking under the conditions.”

The Court held that Culver’s testimony, however, all appears to relate to Defendant’s affirmative defense of Plaintiffs’ comparative negligence and is therefore relevant. Culver may testify to whether Plaintiffs performed their duties in compliance with railroad rules and whether they were warned as to the conditions ahead of them or had reason to anticipate track difficulties.

Held

The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiffs’ expert Alan Pagels and limit the testimony of Plaintiffs’ expert Charles Culver.

While Culver’s testimony will not be excluded, Pagels may not testify about the Defendant’s failure to maintain adequate track drainage; and Defendant’s ability to design, construct, and maintain track in compliance with Defendant’s engineering standards.

Key Takeaway

An expert’s testimony does not need to directly relate to the ultimate issue that the trier of fact is to resolve; the testimony only needs to be relevant to evaluating a factual matter. However, the expert testimony must still be “sufficiently tied to the facts of the case that it will aid the jury in resolving a factual dispute.”

Doubts as to “whether an expert’s testimony will be useful [to the trier of fact] should generally be resolved in favor of admissibility.”

Case Details:

Case Caption:	Keatley V. Union Pacific Railroad Company
Docket Number:	8:21cv455
Court Name:	United States District Court, Nebraska
Order Date:	January 02, 2026