ÿWPC¹ 2# ÌUD× % 0(! 0”I4Ýñw@U<H 0D„ 0JÈ 0T 0^f 0hÄ 0r, 0|ž 0† 0  1u0 0d¥ AQ ÆZ 0D 0@d 0D¤ D/è B B4 D3Q B)„ DC­ AMð U*= g v~hvÓæ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ8§ÖhZŠ,Century-WP RegularX($¡¡(D(2´¤$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóón~<$3|xº ¦§¨©ª1e«¬­Ó€¹º-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Roman(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ !"#%Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'''÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd&&&&'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd ",Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ÷Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ!"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€.XÔÌÌò òMay€8,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€.ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ Ô›œ›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌ______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌJUDY€PLUNK,€who€sues€as€à àà àà àShelby€Circuitò ò€ó óNo.€62261ÌAdministratrix€of€the€Estate€ofà àà àà àC.A.€No.€02A01„9707„CV„00167ÌÙ€ ÙœßR€-/,A1-j|»÷` Å `€€@ÿRß›JERRY€L.€PLUNK,€deceased,Ìfor€the€benefit€of€herself€underÌTitle€45€U.S.C.€Section€51,€and,€Ìfor€the€benefit€of€the€Estate€underÌTitle€45€U.S.C.€Section€59,ÌÌà àPlaintiff,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àHon.€John€R.€McCarroll,€Jr.,€JudgeÌÌILLINOIS€CENTRAL€RAILROAD,ÌA€Corporation,ÌÌà àDefendant.ÌÌSTEPHEN€R.€LEFFLER,€Memphis,€TN,€and€FRANK€O.€BURGE,€JR.,€Birmingham,ÏAL,€€Attorneys€for€Plaintiff.ÌÌGARY€K.€SMITH,€HAROLD€W.€MCLEARY€and€BRYAN€C.€WITT,€Shuttleworth,ÏSmith,€Williams,€Sabbatini€&€Harper,€Memphis,€Attorneys€for€Defendant.ò òÌó óÌòòò òREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDóóó óÌÌOpinion€filed:Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌò òTOMLIN,€Sr.€J.ó óà@ àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÓÓÔ€Ôà àÔ€ ÔJudy€Plunk€(ð ðplaintiffðð)€as€administratrix€of€her€husbandððs€estate,€filed€suit€inÏthe€Circuit€Court€of€Shelby€County€pursuant€to€the€Federal€Employerððs€LiabilityÏAct,€(FELA)€against€the€Illinois€Central€Railroad€(ð ðdefendantðð€or€ð ðrailroadðð)Íseeking€damages€stemming€from€the€death€of€her€husband,€Jerry€PlunkÏ(ð ðdecedentðð),€who€was€the€engineer€of€a€train€owned€and€operated€by€defendantÏthat€was€involved€in€a€head„on€collision€with€another€train.€€The€case€was€tried€by€aÏjury.€€At€the€conclusion€of€plaintiffððs€proof€and€again€at€the€conclusion€of€all€theÏproof,€defendant€made€a€motion€for€a€directed€verdict€which€was€overruled€eachÏtime€by€the€trial€court.€€The€case€was€submitted€to€the€jury,€who€found€plaintiffððsÏdecedent€70%€negligent€and€defendant€30%€negligent€in€causing€the€collision,€andÏawarded€plaintiff€$285,000.00€as€damages.€€On€appeal€defendant€has€raised€fiveÏissues€for€our€consideration:€Ñ7€ QXXdðXXdð7Ñwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€(1)€failing€to€grantÏdefendantððs€motion€for€directed€verdict€on€the€ground€that€decedent€was€the€soleÏcause€of€the€accident;€(2)€admitting€into€evidence€testimony€of€plaintiffððs€expert,ÏDennis€Runcie;€(3)€allowing€other€railroad€employees€to€testify€as€ð ðexpertsððÏregarding€ð ðgood€railroad€practiceðð;€(4)€admitting€into€evidence€testimony€ofÏplaintiffððs€economist€expert,€Fred€Johnson;€and€(5)€failing€to€order€plaintiffððsÏcounsel€to€dismiss€with€prejudice€allegations€of€defendantððs€vicarious€liability€inÏtwo€collateral€cases€pending€in€Mississippi€and€to€cease€representation€of€certainÏplaintiffs€in€the€Mississippi€litigation.€€For€the€reasons€hereinafter€stated,€weÏreverse€in€part€and€remand€this€case€to€the€trial€court€for€a€new€trial€in€keepingÏwith€the€provisions€of€this€opinion.Ìà àWe€will€proceed€to€discuss€pertinent€background€facts€as€well€as€the€materialÏfacts€directly€related€to€the€issues€raised.€€At€the€time€of€the€accident,€plaintiffððsÏdecedent€was€employed€as€a€locomotive€engineer€for€defendant€railroad.€€HisÏemployment€called€for€him€to€make€regular€round€trips€from€Jackson,€MississippiÏto€Memphis.€€On€the€day€of€the€accident,€two€of€defendantððs€freight€trains€wereÏinvolved€in€a€head„on€collision€at€Flora,€Mississippi.€€Plaintiffððs€decedent€was€theÏengineer€on€the€northbound€train,€#6131.€€The€conductor€was€Royce€E.€Crowley.€ÏThe€southbound€train,€#6152,€had€as€its€crew€Q.€B.€Gray,€engineer,€and€WilliamÏGandy,€conductor.€€Ìà àPrior€to€the€collision,€Plunk€and€Crowley€received€a€ð ðmeet€orderðð€from€theÏIllinois€Central€dispatcher,€the€substance€of€which€was€that€their€northbound€trainÏwas€to€stop€at€Cynthia,€Mississippi€until€the€approaching€southbound€train€passedÏby.€€Plaintiffððs€decedent,€who€was€at€the€controls€at€the€time€of€the€accident,€failedÏto€comply€with€the€meet€order€and€drove€train€#6131€past€Cynthia,€withoutÏwaiting€for€the€arrival€of€#6152.€€The€trains€collided€just€north€of€Cynthia,€nearÏFlora,€resulting€in€the€death€of€plaintiffððs€decedent.€€Ìà àPlaintiff€subsequently€filed€this€suit.€€In€her€complaint€she€alleged€thatÏdefendant€was€guilty€of€several€acts€of€negligence,€to€wit:€the€negligence€of€itsÏemployees,€its€signal€system,€its€dispatch€communication€practices,€the€workload€itÍassigned€to€decedent€and€the€defendantððs€general€work€and€safety€practices.€€In€itsÏanswer,€defendant€denied€all€liability,€alleging€that€the€sole€cause€of€the€collisionÏand€the€resulting€death€of€decedent€was€the€negligence€of€decedent€himself€inÏfailing€to€observe,€if€not€willfully€disobeying,€the€meet€order€issued€by€defendantððsÏdispatcher.€€This€appeal€followed.ÌÓÓÌà@ àò òI.€The€Directed€Verdict€Issue.ó óÌÌÌÓÓà àBefore€addressing€this€issue€directly,€it€would€be€helpful€to€develop€some€ofÏthe€undisputed€facts€as€background€in€the€operation€of€defendantððs€railroad.€€AtÏthe€time€of€the€accident€decedent€and€his€conductor€were€working€in€the€YazooÏDistrict€in€the€state€of€Mississippi.€€The€Yazoo€District€is€known€as€ð ðdarkÏterritoryðð€in€railroad€slang,€inasmuch€as€there€are€no€warning€or€signal€lights€alongÏthe€tracks€as€there€are€in€some€other€districts€of€the€railroad.€€In€this€district,Ïdefendant€utilized€special€procedures€and€rules€in€order€to€insure€the€safety€of€theÏoperation€of€their€trains.€€Many€of€these€rules€involve€the€movement€of€its€trains.€€Ìà àFor€instance,€when€a€train€is€in€a€train€yard€it€is€under€the€control€of€theÏyardmaster,€who€directs€the€trainððs€movements€within€that€yard.€€In€order€to€leaveÏa€train€yard,€the€train€must€have€the€authority€to€do€so.€€This€authority€comesÏfrom€the€dispatcher€who€is€covering€the€specific€district€into€which€the€train€is€toÍtravel.€€When€the€train€moves€out€of€a€train€yard,€it€goes€out€from€under€theÏcontrol€of€the€yardmaster€and€under€the€control€of€the€dispatcher.€€By€the€sameÏtoken,€when€a€train€arrives€at€its€train€yard€destination,€the€train€moves€out€fromÏunder€the€control€of€the€dispatcher€and€into€the€control€of€the€yardmaster€of€theÏyard€which€it€is€entering.€€All€such€communication€with€the€yardmaster€and/or€theÏdispatcher€takes€place€by€radio,€one€of€which€is€located€in€the€cab€of€one€of€theÏengines.€Ìà àWhen€a€dispatcher€is€faced€with€giving€authority€to€a€train€to€move€withinÏdark€territory,€it€issues€what€is€called€a€ð ðtrack€permit.ðð€€The€track€permit€providesÏthe€only€authority€by€which€a€crew€can€move€its€train€from€one€train€yard€toÏanother.€€Without€a€valid€track€permit,€the€crew€of€the€train€has€no€authority€toÏmove€that€train€outside€the€boundaries€of€the€train€yard€within€which€it€is€thenÏlocated.€€When€the€time€comes€for€the€issuance€of€a€track€permit€to€a€train,€theÏdispatcher€reads€the€contents€of€the€permit€over€the€radio€to€the€conductor€of€theÏtrain,€whereupon€the€conductor€records€it€on€a€form€issued€by€the€railroad.€€TheÏconductor€is€then€required€to€read€the€contents€of€the€track€permit€back€to€theÏdispatcher,€word€for€word,€for€the€purpose€of€verifying€its€accuracy.€€Once€theÏconductor€on€the€train€has€received€and€properly€verified€a€track€permit,€theÏpermit€is€given€effect€and€it€is€copied€and€posted€in€the€cab€of€the€engine€in€frontÍof€and€in€full€view€of€the€engineer.€Ìà àOn€the€day€of€the€accident,€decedent€and€Crowley€were€the€only€crewÏmembers€of€#6131,€scheduled€to€travel€northbound€from€Jackson,€Mississippi€toÏMemphis.€€Quite€often,€trains€have€two€or€more€locomotives€in€tandem€to€supplyÏsufficient€power€to€the€trains€to€pull€the€cars€making€up€the€train.€€ThisÏcombination€of€two€or€more€engines€is€called€a€ð ðconsist.ðð€€A€train€is€normallyÏidentified€by€the€number€of€the€first€locomotive€in€the€consist.€€However,€noÏmatter€where€the€locomotive€is€located€in€the€consist,€only€one€locomotive€numberÏis€used€to€identify€the€train.€€On€this€date,€the€number€of€the€lead€locomotive€wasÏ#6131,€thus€the€train€was€referred€to€as€train€#6131.€€The€last€locomotive€in€theÏconsist,€if€its€number€is€not€used€as€the€identification€for€the€train€itself,€isÏreferred€to€as€the€ð ðtrailingðð€locomotive.€€Ìà àWhile€decedent€and€Crowley€were€assembling€the€cars€of€their€train€in€theÏJackson€train€yard,€they€received€a€track€permit€by€radio€from€the€dispatcher.€€ThisÏtrack€permit€was€permit€no.€54.€€It€contained€a€ð ðmeet€order.ðð€€A€ð ðmeet€orderðð€isÏan€order€within€a€track€permit€issued€by€the€dispatcher€to€inform€the€crew€that€itsÏtrain€is€scheduled€to€meet€another€train€while€en€route€to€its€destination.€€ThisÏmeet€order,€also€called€a€ð ðline€3"€because€of€its€location€within€the€track€permit,Ïestablishes€which€train€has€priority€and€when€and€where€the€subordinate€trainÍmust€wait€for€the€primary€train€to€pass.€€The€meet€order€directed€their€train,Ï#6131,€to€wait€at€Cynthia,€a€station€north€of€Jackson,€and€to€allow€a€southboundÏtrain,€#6152,€en€route€to€Jackson,€to€pass€by€before€proceeding€further.€ÏNorthbound€train€#6131€was€the€subordinate€train€and€southbound€train€#6152Ïwas€the€primary€train.Ìà àConductor€Crowley€testified€that€a€few€minutes€prior€to€receiving€the€trackÏpermit€containing€the€meet€order,€both€he€and€decedent€overheard€an€unidentifiedÏvoice€on€the€railroad€radio€stating€that€there€was€a€train€in€the€Jackson€yard€thatÏhad€locomotive€#6152€ð ðtrailing.ðð€€In€railroad€lingo,€this€would€seem€to€indicateÏthat€locomotive€#6152€was€the€second€or€at€least€a€ð ðfollowingðð€engine€in€a€trainÏthen€located€in€the€Jackson€yard.€Ìà àIn€FELA€cases,€federal€law€controls€as€to€all€matters€of€substantive€law.€€òòSeeóó€ÏòòPalmer€v.€Norfolk„Southern€Ry.€Co.óó,€No.€03A01„9309„CV„00313,€1994€WLÏ111037,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€March€30,€1994),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€Aug.€22,Ï1994)€(citations€omitted).€€While€federal€law€governs€the€substantive€rights€of€theÏparties,€procedural€matters€are€governed€by€applicable€state€rules€when€the€case€isÏtried€in€state€courts.€€òòMitchell€v.€Missouri„Kansas„Texas€R.R.€Co.óó,€786€S.W.2d€659,Ï661€(Tex.€1990).€€Ìà àIn€considering€a€motion€by€a€party€seeking€a€directed€verdict,€the€law€of€thisÍstate€requires€that€first€the€trial€judge,€and€then€the€appellate€courts,€take€theÏstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€presented€in€favor€of€the€opponent€to€theÏmotion,€allowing€all€reasonable€inferences€in€his€or€her€favor,€at€the€same€timeÏdiscarding€all€countervailing€evidence.€€òòFlynn€v.€Shoneyððs,€Inc.óó,€850€S.W.2d€458,Ï459„60€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).€€Where€there€is€any€doubt€as€to€the€conclusions€toÏbe€drawn€from€the€whole€evidence,€the€motion€should€be€denied.€€A€verdict€shouldÏnot€be€directed€during,€or€after,€trial€except€where€reasonable€minds€could€drawÏbut€one€conclusion.€€òòHolmes€v.€Wilsonóó,€551€S.W.2d€682,€685€(Tenn.€1977).€€Ìà àIn€seeking€to€have€this€court€reverse€the€trial€court€and€dismiss€plaintiffððsÏsuit,€defendant€relies€on€four€U.€S.€Supreme€Court€cases,€all€decided€between€1924Ïand€1932.€€Two€of€those€cases,€most€frequently€sighted€for€the€propositionÏadvocated€by€defendant,€are€òòDavis€v.€Kennedyóó,€266€U.S.€147,€45€S.Ct.€33,€69€L.Ed.Ï212€(1924),€and€òòUnadilla€Valley€Ry.€Co.€v.€Caldineóó,€278€U.S.€139,€49€S.Ct.€91,€73ÏL.Ed.€224€(1928).€€All€four€of€these€cases€were€suits€brought€pursuant€to€theÏprovisions€of€the€FELA.€€This€act,€among€other€important€steps,€abolished€theÏfellow€servant€rule,€substituted€comparative€negligence€for€the€strict€rule€ofÏcontributory€negligence€and€allowed€survivors€to€bring€an€action€for€tort€liability.€ÏòòTiller€v.€Atlantic€Coast€Line€R.€Co.óó,€318€U.S.€54,€62,€63€S.Ct.€444,€448„49,€87€L.Ed.Ï610,€615€(1943).€€As€the€act€was€later€interpreted,€it€required€a€careful€distinctionÍbetween€assumption€of€risk€and€contributory€negligence,€since€assumption€of€riskÏwas€an€absolute€bar€to€recovery€while€contributory€negligence€merely€reduced€theÏamount€of€recovery.€€òòId.óó€at€62„63.Ìà àThe€assumption€of€risk€clause€led€to€much€litigation.€€In€addition€to€theÏdifficultly€in€distinguishing€between€contributory€negligence€and€assumption€of€riskÏother€problems€arose,€one€of€which€was€the€application€of€the€ð ðprimary€duty€rule,ððÏin€which€contributory€negligence€through€the€violation€of€a€company€rule€becameÏassumption€of€risk.€€Such€was€the€basis€for€the€supreme€courtððs€ruling€in€òòUnadillaÏValley€Ry.€Co.óó€and€òòDavisóó.€€òòSeeóó€òòTilleróó,€318€U.S.€at€63.Ìà àIn€1939,€section€54€of€the€FELA€was€amended€to€read€as€follows€(The€1939Ïamendment€added€the€underlined€language):ÌÓÓÌà8 àIn€any€action€brought€against€any€common€carrier€under€or€by€virtueÏof€any€of€the€provisions€of€the€Act€[45€USCS€ðððð51]€to€recoverÏdamages€for€injuries€to,€or€the€death€of,€any€of€its€employees,€suchÏemployee€shall€not€be€held€to€have€assumed€the€risks€of€hisÏemployment€in€any€case€òòwhere€such€injury€or€death€resulted€in€wholeÏor€in€part€from€the€negligence€of€any€of€the€officers,€agents,€orÏemployees€of€such€carrier;€and€no€employee€shall€be€held€to€haveÏassumed€the€risks€of€his€employment€in€any€caseóó€where€the€violationÏby€such€common€carrier€of€any€statute€enacted€for€the€safety€ofÏemployees€contributed€to€the€injury€or€death€of€such€employee.€Ìà à45€U.S.C.S.€ðð€54€(emphasis€supplied).ÌÌÌÓÓà àòòTilleróó€was€the€first€U.S.€Supreme€Court€case€to€interpret€the€scope€and€effectÍof€the€1939€amendment€to€the€FELA.€€Briefly€stated,€the€facts€in€òòTilleróó€were€these:ÏTiller,€a€railroad€security€officer,€was€inspecting€the€seals€of€a€train€moving€slowlyÏon€one€track€when€he€was€hit€and€killed€by€the€rear€of€a€train€backing€the€oppositeÏdirection€on€another€track.€€Defendant€pled€contributory€negligence€as€well€as€aÏseparate€defense€that€plaintiff€had€assumed€all€the€risks€necessary€to€hisÏemployment.€€The€trial€court€granted€a€directed€verdict€which€was€affirmed€by€theÏCourt€of€Appeals.€€In€reversing€the€Court€of€Appeals€and€remanding€the€case€for€aÏnew€trial,€€the€Supreme€Court€stated€in€part:ÌÓÓÌà8 àWe€hold€that€every€vestige€of€the€doctrine€of€assumption€of€risk€wasÏobliterated€from€the€law€by€the€1939€amendment,€and€that€Congress,Ïby€abolishing€the€defense€of€assumption€of€risk€in€that€statute,€did€notÏmean€to€leave€open€the€identical€defense€for€the€master€by€changingÏits€name€to€ð ðnon„negligence.ððÌà àòòTilleróó,€318€U.S.€at€58.ÌÌÌÓÓà àLater€in€the€opinion,€shortly€after€its€consideration€of€òòUnadilla€Valley€R.€Co.óóÏand€òòDavisóó,€the€Court€stated€the€following:ÌÓÓÌà8 àIt€was€this€maze€of€law€which€Congress€swept€into€discard€with€theÏadoption€of€the€1939€amendment€to€the€Employersðð€Liability€Act,Ïreleasing€the€employee€from€the€burden€of€assumption€of€risk€byÏwhatever€name€it€was€called.€€The€result€is€an€Act€which€requires€casesÏtried€under€the€Federal€Act€to€be€handled€as€though€no€doctrine€ofÏassumption€of€risk€had€ever€existed.€€Ìà àòòTilleróó,€318€U.S.€at€64.ÌÌ€Further€on,€the€court€said:ÌÌà8 àIn€this€situation€the€employerððs€liability€is€to€be€determined€under€theÏgeneral€rule€which€defines€negligence€as€the€lack€of€due€care€under€theÏcircumstances;€or€the€failure€to€do€what€a€reasonable€and€prudent€manÏwould€ordinarily€have€done€under€the€circumstances€of€the€situation;Ïor€doing€what€such€a€person€under€the€existing€circumstances€wouldÏnot€have€done.€€òòÌà àId.óó€at€67€(footnote€omitted).ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€principles€laid€down€by€the€Supreme€Court€in€òòTilleróó€were€considered€inÏòòAtlantic€Coast€Line€R.€Co.€v.€Mangumóó,€34€So.2d€848€(Ala.€1948).€€The€facts€in€thatÏcase€were€quite€similar€to€the€facts€in€the€case€at€bar.€€The€crew€of€a€train€ofÏdefendantððs€railroad€were€given€instructions,€through€a€dispatcher€to€theÏconductor,€which€were€conveyed€to€all€five€members€of€the€crew,€that€there€wereÏtwo€trains€proceeding€in€the€opposite€direction€toward€this€train€and€that€theÏsubject€train€was€directed€to€take€a€siding€at€a€certain€location€to€permit€the€trainsÏfrom€the€opposite€direction€to€clear.€€The€record€reflects€that€the€train€took€theÏsiding,€and€permitted€the€first€train€to€pass€by.€€It€appeared€from€the€proof€that€allÏof€the€crew€forgot€about€the€second€train€coming€toward€them€whereupon€theÏengineer€started€up€the€train€and€proceeded€off€the€siding€onto€the€main€line,Ïwhere€it€collided€with€the€oncoming€train,€killing€the€engineer.€€The€jury€returned€aÏverdict€in€favor€of€the€estate€of€the€engineer€against€the€railroad.€Ìà àIn€òòAtlantic€Coast€Line€R.€Co.óó,€òòsupraóó,€counsel€for€plaintiff€conceded€thatÍwithout€the€force€and€effect€of€the€amendment€of€1939,€abolishing€the€defense€ofÏassumption€of€risk,€decisions€of€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€were€such€thatÏplaintiff€would€have€no€right€of€action.€€He€was€referring€to€the€òòDavisóó€and€òòUnadillaÏValley€R.€Co.óó€opinions.€€In€addition,€the€òòAtlantic€Coast€Line€R.€Co.óó€case€cited€withÏapproval€the€case€of€òòKeith€v.€Wheeling€L.€&€E.€R.R.€Co.óó,€160€F.2d€654ò ò€ó ó(6th€Cir.Ï1947),€holding€that€it€was€clear€in€òòTilleróó€that€the€Supreme€Court€had€destroyed€theÏprimary€duty€rule€under€those€circumstances,€as€a€consequence€of€the€1939Ïamendment€eliminating€assumption€of€risk€as€a€defense.€€The€Alabama€court€notedÏthat€the€òòKeithóó€case€cited€many€opinions€of€the€Supreme€Court€that:ÌÓÓÌà8 à€point€out€that€the€question€of€liability€now€is€one€for€the€jury€whereÏthere€is€any€evidence€of€negligence€on€the€part€of€other€agents€orÏemployees€of€the€defendant,€which€may€be€found€by€the€jury€either€inÏpart€[or]€in€whole€to€have€been€the€cause€of€the€injury€or€deathÏinvolved.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÏòòAtlantic€Coast€Line€R.€Co.óó,€34€So.2d€at€852.€ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€following€excerpts€from€the€testimony€of€conductor€Crowley€showÏclearly€what€took€place€in€the€cab€of€#6131€on€that€fateful€day:ÌÓÓÌà8 àQà àSo,€the€engineer€is€the€one€driving€the€train;€right?Ìà8 àAà àThatððs€right.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQà àAnd€you€want€the€track€permit€in€front€of€the€person€drivingÏthe€train;€right?Ìà8 àAà àThatððs€right.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQà àWhere€it€went€on€this€day€was€right€in€front€of€the€man€drivingÍthe€train.€€Mr.€Plunk,€right?Ìà8 àAà àThatððs€right.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQà àHeððs€got€a€place€up€there€where€he€can€put€it€up€there,€hold€itÏand€put€it€stationary,€and€it€is€always€right€there€in€front€of€himÏand€he€is€looking€at€it?Ìà8 àAà àThatððs€right.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQà àThat€was€never€moved€from€that€spot€right€in€front€of€him€onÏFebruary€26,€1994€as€far€as€you€know,€was€it?Ìà8 àAà àAs€far€as€I€know.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQà àWhen€you€got€track€permit€54,€and€we€have€been€over€it€andÏare€going€to€go€over€again€some€of€the€provisions€in€here,€itÏtells€you,€youððve€got€a€line€3,€and€that€line€3,€and€that€line€3Ïmeans€that€youððre€going€to€have€a€meet€at€Cynthia€when€youÏget€up€there;€correct?Ìà8 àAà àThatððs€what€it€says.Ìà@ à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àQà àWhen€you€receive€a€track€permit,€such€as€track€permit€54,€noÏone€à àon€that€train,€including€you€or€the€man€driving€it,€Mr.€Plunk,Ïhas€€€à àthe€authority€to€ignore€the€terms€of€that€permit,€do€you?Ìà àAà àUnless€we€think€it€is€fulfilled.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQà àWell,€if€a€track€permit€is€fulfilled,€you€are€not€ignoring€itsÏterms,€are€you?Ìà àAà àThatððs€right.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQà àIf€a€track€permit€is€fulfilled,€that€means€you€have€complied€withÏit;€correct?Ìà àAà àThatððs€correct.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQà àAll€right.€€So,€letððs€donððt€talk€about€fulfilling€it,€letððs€talk€aboutÏjust€ignoring€what€it€says.€€You€would€agree€with€me€thatÏnobody€on€that€train€or€any€train€has€the€authority€to€ignoreÏthe€terms€of€a€track€permit?€€You€would€agree€with€that,Ïwouldnððt€you?Ìà àAà àThatððs€right.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQà àNo€one€on€that€train,€this€train€or€any€other€train,€hasÏauthority€to€violate€the€terms€of€a€track€permit,€do€you?Ìà8 àAà àThatððs€right.Ìà8 àQà àYou€agree?Ìà8 àAà àThatððs€right.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQà àYou€would€also€agree€with€me,€looking€back€on€it€now,€thatÏtrain€6131€north€did€not€comply€with€that€line€3€of€trackÏpermit€54?€€Agreed?Ìà8 àAà àWe€thought€we€did.Ìà8 àQà àBut€you€didnððt,€did€you?Ìà8 àAà àWell,€it€ended€up€we€didnððt,€but€we€thought€we€did.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQà àBut€the€fact€of€the€matter€is€if€train€6131€north,€your€train,Ïbeing€driven€by€Jerry€Plunk€with€you€as€conductor,€had€stoppedÏat€Cynthia€the€way€that€line€3€says€for€you€to€do€for€a€meet,€theÏwreck€would€never€have€happened,€would€it?Ìà8 àAà àWell,€in€hindsight€that€would€have€to€be€correct,€I€guess.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQà àWhat€line€3€tells€you€other€than€the€fact€that€you€were€going€toÏhave€a€meet€is€it€tells€œyou€you›€are€going€to€have€a€meet€with€aÏspecific€train€that€is€north€of€Cynthia,€and€that€specific€train€isÏ6152;€correct?Ìà8 àAà àThatððs€right.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQà àNow,€you€had€some€discussion€about€this€on€Thursday.€€ItÏdoesnððt€say€how€far€north€of€Cynthia€6152€[is],€it€just€tells€youÏit€is€north€of€Cynthia;€right?Ìà8 àAà àThatððs€right.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQà àSo€that€when€you€got€track€permit€54€down€here€aroundÏHalston€à àà àà àand€Rick€Orel€[the€dispatcher]€tellsÏyou€that€you€are€to€have€a€meet,€you€will€have€a€meet€withÏ6152€at€Cynthia,€as€far€as€you€knew€right€at€that€moment,Ïassuming€that€he€is€right,€that€heððs€got€a€6152€up€thereÏsouthbound€north€of€Cynthia,€for€all€you€know€at€that€momentÏyou€may€get€to€Cynthia€and€you€may€see€6152€sitting€on€thatÏcrossing€and€waiting€on€you,€or€you€may€not€see€6152€at€all,€itÏhasnððt€gotten€there€yet.€€Those€are€the€two€possibilities€œthatÏthat›€track€permit€tells€you;€isnððt€that€right?Ìà8 àAà àAccording€to€the€permit,€yes,€sir.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQà àSo,€if€you€get€up€here€on€your€train€to€Cynthia€and€you€donððtÏsee€à àà àà àunder€that€permit€6152€sitting€here€on€theÏsiding,€and€what€that€à àà àà àtrack€permit€now€tellsÏyou€is€he€is€up€here€somewhere€out€of€your€sight€coming€at€you;Ïthatððs€what€the€permit€tells€us,€isnððt€it?Ìà8 àà0 àà àAà àThatððs€the€purpose€of€the€permit,€yes,€sir.Ìà8 àQ€à àThatððs€what€the€permit€tells€us€at€that€point,€isnððt€it?€€Ìà8 àAà àThatððs€right.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQà àWhat€that€permit€tells€us€with€this€6152€up€here€somewhereÏà àà àà àcoming€towards€you€out€of€sight€is€do€notÏdrive€train€6131€à àà àà àthrough€Cynthia€and€continueÏnorth?€€That€is€what€the€permit€à àà àà àtells€us,Ïdoesnððt€it?Ìà8 àAà àThatððs€what€the€permit€means,€yes,€sir.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQà àIn€spite€of€the€fact€thatððs€what€that€permit€means,€Mr.€PlunkÏà àà àà àdrove€the€6131€north€through€CynthiaÏwithout€stopping€on€à àà àà àFebruary€26,€1994,€didnððtÏhe?Ìà8 àAà àHe€went€past€Cynthia,€yes,€sir.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQà àMy€question€is€Mr.€Plunk€drove€the€6131€north€throughÏCynthia€à àà àà àwithout€stopping,€didnððt€he?Ìà8 àAà àThatððs€right.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQà àYour€train€from€the€time€you€pulled€out€of€Jackson€yard€neverÏà àà àà àstopped;€isnððt€that€right?Ìà8 àAà àThatððs€right.Ìà@ à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà0 àà àQà àOkay.€€Fine.€€When€the€decision€was€made€on€February€26,Ï1994€à àà àà ànot€to€stop€at€Cynthia,€as€per€line€3€on€trackÏpermit€54,€you€were€not€the€person€who€came€up€with€thatÏidea,€were€you?Ìà8 àAà àNo,€sir.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQà àAnd€how€many€people€were€on€that€train?€€Just€you€and€Mr.Ïà àà àà àPlunk;€right?Ìà8 àAà àThatððs€right.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQà àNow,€after€Mr.€Plunk€went€by€Cynthia€without€stopping€theÏtrain€in€violation€of€line€3€of€track€permit€54,€you€didnððt€makeÏhim€à àà àà àà àstop,€did€you?Ìà8 àAà àNo,€we€didnððt€stop€at€Cynthia.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQà àAnd€you€didnððt€stop€anywhere€else€until€that€head„on€occurred,Ïà àà àà àdid€you?Ìà8 àAà àNo,€sir.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQà àSo,€I€guess€my€next€inquiry€would€be€if€you€didnððt€come€up€withÏà àà àà àthe€idea€not€to€stop,€then€when€was€theÏdecision€made,€and€it€à àà àà àwould€be€your€testimonyÍin€front€of€this€jury€that€the€train€6131€à àà àà àonÏwhich€you€were€the€conductor€and€Mr.€Plunk€was€the€engineer,Ïwhen€it€left€down€here€around€Halston€getting€its€trackÏà àà àà àpermit,€it€never€intended€to€stop€at€CynthiaÏaccording€to€line€3€of€track€permit€54;€isnððt€that€true?Ìà8 àAà àWell,€the€decision€had€been€made€when€he€got€the€permit€thatÏwe€à àfelt€that€we€had€met€the€train€in€the€yard.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQà àAll€Iððm€asking€you€right€now€is€when€the€decision€was€made€notÏà àà àà àto€stop€at€Cynthia.€€And€your€testimony€isÏthe€decision€not€to€à àà àà àstop€at€Cynthia€wasÏmade€on€train€6131€back€here€at€the€time€à àà àà àyouÏgot€the€permit€at€Halston?Ìà8 àAà àNo,€sir.€€Not€all€the€way,€no.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQà àAll€right.€€So,€you€tell€me€when€it€was€as€far€as€you€know,€if€youÏà àà àà àknow.€€Maybe€Iððd€better€clarify€that.€€Do€youÏknow€when€the€à àà àà àdecision€was€made€not€to€stopÏthat€train€at€Cynthia€in€accordance€with€line€3€of€permit€54?Ìà8 àAà àYes.€€At€Cynthia.Ìà@ à.€.€.€.€à8 àÌÌà8 àà0 àà àQà àSo,€as€you€were€approaching€Cynthia€youððre€still€of€a€mind€to€doÏà àà àà àwhat€line€3€says;€is€that€right?Ìà8 àAà àNo,€we€didnððt.€€We€felt€we€had€already€met€that€train.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQà àWell,€what€is€going€on€in€terms€of€information€that€you€have€orÏà àà àà àdonððt€have€as€youððre€approaching€CynthiaÏthat€is€influencing€à àà àà àwhether€or€not€you€are€going€toÏstop€the€way€the€track€permit€à àà àà àtells€you?Ìà8 àAà àWell,€I€relied€upon€the€information€of€my€fellow€employees.Ìà8 àQà àAll€right.Ìà8 àAà àAs€to€whether€we€should€stop€or€continue.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQà àSo,€you€relied€on€Mr.€Plunkððs€judgment€as€to€whether€or€notÏyou€à àà àà àshould€stop€or€continue€in€accordance€withÏline€3€of€track€permit€à àà àà à54€when€you€got€toÏCynthia?Ìà8 àAà àAbsolutely.Ìà8 àQà àAbsolutely.€€Thatððs€the€long€and€short€of€it,€isnððt€it,€Mr.ÏCrowley?Ìà8 àAà àYes,€sir.€€Well,€the€decision€was€made€together.Ìà8 àQà àBut€you€relied€on€what?€€You€relied€on€Mr.€Plunk?Ìà8 àAà àYes,€sir.Ìà8 àQà àYou€acquiesced€to€Mr.€Plunk?Ìà8 àAà àYes,€sir.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQà àOr€I€guess€stated€differently,€you€deferred€to€Mr.€Plunk€on€thatÏà àà àà àà àand€the€train€kept€going?Ìà8 àAà àYes,€sir.Ìà8 àQà àYou€did€have€authority€as€the€conductor€of€the€train€to€stop€it,Ïof€à àcourse?Ìà8 àAà àYes,€sir.Ìà8 àQà àBut€you€did€not?Ìà8 àAà àNo,€sir.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQà àAgain,€because€you€were€deferring€to€your€co„employee,€Mr.Ïà àà àà àPlunk?Ìà8 àAà àYes,€sir.Ìà@ à.€.€.€.€ÌÌà8 àà0 àà àQà àWell,€when€you€take€[a]€track€permit€then,€which€you€haveÏalready€acknowledged€is€the€authority€and€the€only€authority€toÏmove€that€train,€Rick€Orel€[the€dispatcher]€gives€it€to€you,€andÏyou€now€acknowledge€that€he€gave€you€correct€information€andÏa€correct€track€permit,€you€read€it€back€to€him€over€the€radioÏto€make€sure€that€you€and€he€have€the€same€information;€right?Ìà8 àAà àThatððs€correct.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQà àAnd€I€believe€you€told€us€this€Thursday,€you€did€that.€€YouÏdidnððt€say€to€him€oh,€by€the€way,€Rick,€why€are€you€giving€me€aÏline€3€à àà àà àto€meet€train€6152€south€at€Cynthia?€€ThatÏtrain€is€already€in€the€yard.€€You€didnððt€do€that,€did€you?Ìà8 àAà àYou€donððt€interrupt€him€when€he€is€giving€it€to€you.Ìà8 àQà àYou€didnððt€do€it,€did€you?Ìà8 àAà àNo.Ìà8 àQà àAfter€he€gave€it€to€you€and€you€are€reading€it€back,€you€didnððtÏsay€à àRick,€thereððs€got€to€be€some€mistake.€€6152€is€already€down€inÏthe€à àyard.€€You€didnððt€do€that,€did€you?Ìà8 àAà àNo,€sir.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQà àIn€addition€to€reading€it€back€to€him,€you€write€it€down€andÏyou€à àà àà àgive€that€to€Mr.€Plunk;€right?Ìà8 àAà àThatððs€right.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQà àAnd€after€you€have€read€it€back€and€Rick€Orel€hears€you€say€toÏà àà àà àhim€the€same€things€that€he€has€said€to€you,Ïand€when€he€hears€à àà àà àthat€you€have€given€him€backÏcorrect€information,€he€gives€you€à àà àà àthis€okayÏtime,€which€happened€to€occur€at€1:16€p.m.,€and€thatÏà àà àà àeffectuates€that€track€permit?Ìà8 àAà àThatððs€correct.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQà àSo,€not€only€in€this€case€do€we€now€know€from€you€that€RickÏà àà àà àOrel€gave€a€correct€track€permit€to€you,€weÏnow€know€that€you€à àà àà àunderstood€that€correctÏtrack€permit;€right?Ìà8 àAà àWell,€I€understood€[what]€it€was€supposed€to€be,€yes,€sir.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQà àIn€other€words,€you€understood€what€he€said;€you€didnððtÏà àà àà àmisunderstood€[sic]€anything€that€he€said?Ìà8 àAà àNo,€sir.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQà àFrom€Halston€at€or€about€mile€marker€215€to€Flora,€somewhereÏà àà àà àaround€mile€marker€202,€some€13€miles,€theÏtrain€6131€never€à àà àà àsaid€to€Rick€Orel€you€line€3Ïinformation€is€wrong€or€we€want€to€à àà àà àknow€forÏsure€if€it€is€wrong;€that€never€happened,€did€it?Ìà8 àAà àNo€to€my€knowledge,€no.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQà àYou€could€have€„„€and€when€I€say€you,€Iððm€talking€about€6131€„„Ïà àà àà à6131€could€have,€between€Halstonò ò€ó óandÏCynthia,€or€for€that€matter€between€Cynthia€and€Flora,Ïcontacted€the€dispatcher€and€asked€for€clarification€of€line€3Ïbefore€you€went€by€Cynthia;€true?Ìà8 àAà àWell,€thatððs€true.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQà àIf€for€some€reason€you€made€that€decision€just€before€you€gotÏto€à àà àà àCynthia,€and€you€want€clarification€of€line€3,Ïand€you€want€it€à àà àà àfrom€the€dispatcher,€you€canÏstop€and€talk€to€the€dispatcher,€à àà àà àcanððt€you?Ìà8 àAà àWe€could€have,€sure.Ìà8 àQà àBut€you€didnððt,€did€you?Ìà8 àAà àNo,€we€didnððt.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQà àIf€there€is€a€question€about€whether€or€not€the€information€onÏthe€line€3€meet€is€accurate,€a€safer€course€would€be€to€ask€theÏà àà àà àdispatcher€for€clarification€rather€than€goingÏon€through€that€à àà àà àmeet;€isnððt€that€true?Ìà8 àà0 àà àAà àWell,€you€rely€on€your€employeesðð€information,€you€rely€on€yourÏà àà àà àown€information,€and€if€you€felt€you€haveÏseen€this€engine€or€any€à àà àà àmember€of€the€crew,Ïthatððs€all€thatððs€necessary.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQà àMy€question€is€if€there€is€any€question€about€a€line€3€meet,Ïbefore€you€choose€to€go€through€that€meet€point€withoutÏseeing€the€à àà àà àtrain€youððre€supposed€to€meet,€a€saferÏcourse€of€action€would€be€à àà àà àto€ask€theÏdispatcher€for€clarification€or€instructions;€wouldnððtÏà àà àà àthat€be€safer?Ìà8 àAà àI€assume€it€would,€yes,€sir.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQà àAnd€the€reason€we€know€that,€isnððt€it€true,€Mr.€Crowley,€is€theÏà àà àà àdispatcher€is€telling€you€right€here€there€is€aÏtrain€north€of€you€à àà àà àà àcoming€south;€thatððsÏwhat€that€line€3€means;€isnððt€it?Ìà8 àAà àThatððs€right.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQà àSo,€when€you,€for€whatever€reason,€I€donððt€care€what€it€is,€but€ifÏà àà àà àà àfor€some€reason€the€train€6131€thinksÏthe€dispatcher€is€wrong,€à àà àà àthen€a€safer€course€ofÏaction€would€be€to€ask€the€dispatcher€about€that.€€You€wouldÏhave€to€agree€with€that,€wouldnððt€you?Ìà8 àAà àI€assume€so,€yes,€sir.ÌÌÌÓÓà àIn€light€of€this€record,€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€a€jury€question€wasÏpresented€as€to€the€negligence€of€defendant€by€and€through€his€agents€and/orÏemployees.€€The€trial€court€did€not€err€in€submitting€the€case€to€the€jury.ÌÓÓÌà@ àò òII.€The€Expert€Testimony€Issues.ó óÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€next€three€issues€raised€by€defendant€deal€with€the€admissibility€ofÏevidence€from€expert€witnesses,€or€at€least€witnesses€alleged€to€be€experts.€€WhileÍfederal€law€controls€substantive€matters€in€a€FELA€case,€in€the€absence€of€anyÏinterference€with€substantive€rights€or€defenses€under€FELA,€state€rules€governingÏthe€admissibility€of€evidence€should€apply.€€òòEubanks€v.€CSX€Transp.€Inc.,€et€alóó,€478ÏS.E.2d€387,€390€(Ga.€Ct.€App.€1996),€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòHileman€v.€Pittsburgh€&€Lake€ErieÏR.R.€Co.óó,€685€A.2d€994,€997€(Pa.€1996).€€Consequently,€in€dealing€with€defendantððsÏsecond€and€third€issues€pertaining€to€the€admissibility€of€certain€expert€testimony,Ïwe€will€be€applying,€at€least€in€part,€Rule€702€and€703€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏEvidence,€which€reads€as€follows:€ÌÓÓÌà8 àò òRule€702ó ó.€€ò òTestimony€by€experts.ó óð"ðIf€scientific,€technical,€or€otherÏspecialized€knowledge€will€substantially€assist€the€trier€of€fact€toÏunderstand€the€evidence€or€to€determine€a€fact€in€issue,€a€witnessÏqualified€as€an€expert€by€knowledge,€skill,€experience,€training,€orÏeducation€may€testify€in€the€form€of€an€opinion€or€otherwise.ÌÌà8 àò òRule€703.€€Bases€of€opinion€testimony€by€experts.ó óð"ðThe€facts€orÏdata€in€the€particular€case€upon€which€an€expert€bases€an€opinion€orÏinference€may€be€those€perceived€by€or€made€known€to€the€expert€atÏor€before€the€hearing.€€If€of€a€type€reasonably€relied€upon€by€experts€inÏthe€particular€field€in€forming€opinions€or€inferences€upon€the€subject,Ïthe€facts€or€data€need€not€be€admissible€in€evidence.€€The€court€shallÏdisallow€testimony€in€the€form€of€an€opinion€or€inference€if€theÏunderlying€facts€or€data€indicate€lack€of€trustworthiness.ÌÌÌÓÓà àWhile€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€702€requires€that€the€scientific€or€technical€evidenceÏð ðòòsubstantiallyóó€assist€the€trier€of€fact,ðð€its€federal€counterpart,€Fed.€R.€Evid.€702Ïrequires€only€that€the€evidence€ð ðassist€the€trier€of€fact.ðð€€ð ðThis€distinctionÍindicates€that€the€probative€force€of€the€testimony€must€be€stronger€before€it€isÏadmitted€in€Tennessee.ðð€€òòMcDaniel€v.€CSX€Transp.,€Inc.óó,€955€S.W.2d€257,€264Ï(Tenn.€1997).€€Ìà àIn€a€similar€vein,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€703€states€that€ð ð[t]he€court€shall€disallowÏtestimony€in€the€form€of€an€opinion€or€inference€if€the€underlying€facts€or€dataÏindicate€lack€of€trustworthiness.ðð€€There€is€no€similar€restriction€in€the€federal€rule.€ÏòòId.óó€at€264„65.Ìà àIn€this€state€the€qualifications,€admissibility,€relevancy€and€competency€ofÏexpert€testimony€are€matters€which€largely€rest€within€the€sound€discretion€of€theÏtrial€court.€€However,€this€discretion€is€not€absolute€and€may€be€overturned€onÏappeal€where€the€discretion€is€arbitrarily€exercised.€€òòState€v.€Ballardóó,€855€S.W.2dÏ557,€562€(Tenn.€1993).€€ÌÌà@ àò òA.€Testimony€of€the€Witness€Runcie.Ìó óà àPlaintiff€offered€Dr.€Dennis€Runcie,€a€psychologist€from€Alabama€as€aÏwitness,€to€give€his€expert€opinion€to€the€effect€that€decedent€was€suffering€fromÏfatigue€at€the€time€of€the€accident.€€Defendantððs€earlier€motion€òòin€limineóó€whichÏsought€to€exclude€this€testimony€was€denied.€€òò€óóWhen€Dr.€Runcie€was€called€as€aÏwitness€at€trial€defendant€once€again€objected,€but€the€motion€was€overruled.€€Ìà àDr.€Runcie€is€a€psychologist€who€has€studied€the€effects€of€fatigue€on€theÏdecision„making€processes€of€the€human€mind.€€Plaintiff€sought€to€establish€thatÏthe€work€schedule€which€defendant€had€required€decedent€to€follow€in€the€weeksÏpreceding€the€accident€caused€decedentððs€judgment€to€be€clouded€by€fatigue€on€theÏday€of€his€death.€€Defendantððs€objection€to€this€testimony€was€based€on€twoÏgrounds:€(1)€that€as€a€psychologist,€Dr.€Runcie€was€prohibited€by€T.C.A.€ðð€63„11„204(a)€and€(c)€from€attempting€to€diagnose€any€òòphysicalóó€malady,€and€(2)€that€hisÏtestimony€was€too€equivocal€and€speculative€to€meet€the€burden€of€being€able€toÏð ðsubstantially€assistðð€the€trier€of€fact.€€We€are€of€the€opinion€that€both€objectionsÏare€well€taken.Ìà àThe€relevant€portion€of€the€statute€relied€upon€by€defendant€in€seeking€toÏexclude€Dr.€Runcieððs€testimony€reads€as€follows:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà à(a)€Nothing€in€ðððð€63„11„201„„63„11„203€shall€be€construed€asÏpermitting€the€use€of€those€forms€of€psychotherapy€which€involve€theÏadministration€or€prescription€of€drugs€or€electroshock€òòor€in€any€wayÏinfringing€upon€the€practice€of€medicine€óóas€defined€in€the€laws€of€this€state.ÌÌà@ à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà à(c)€A€psychologist€or€psychological€examiner€must€not€attemptÏto€diagnose,€prescribe€for,€treat€or€advise€a€client€with€reference€toÏproblems€or€complaints€falling€òòoutside€the€boundaries€of€psychologicalÏpracticeóó.Ìà àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€63„11„204€(1997)€(emphasis€supplied).ÌÌÌÓÓThe€definition€of€the€practice€of€medicine€as€referred€to€in€the€statute€above€is€setÏout€in€T.C.A.€ðð€63„6„204(a)(1)€as€follows:€ð ðAny€person€shall€be€regarded€asÏpracticing€medicine,€within€the€meaning€of€this€chapter,€who€treats,€or€professes€toÏdiagnose,€treat,€operates€on€or€prescribes€for€any€òòphysical€ailmentóó€or€any€physicalÏinjury€to€or€deformity€of€another.ðð€(Emphasis€supplied).Ìà àThe€following€excerpt€of€Runcieððs€testimony€demonstrates€the€physicalÏaspects€of€fatigue:ÌÓÓÌà8 àQ.à àFatigue€is€a€physical€pathology,€is€it€not?Ìà8 àA.à àIn€part,€yes.Ìà8 àQ.à àIn€other€words,€if€we€are€tired,€that€is€physical?ÌÌà@ à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àA.à àIn€part€that€is€true.Ìà8 àQ.à àThe€body€reacts€physiologically€to€fatigue?Ìà8 àA.à àYes,€that€is€true.ÌÌÌÓÓWhile€Dr.€Runcie€may€be€qualified€to€testify€as€to€the€psychological€effects€ofÏfatigue€on€Plunk,€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€he€was€not€qualified€to€testify€as€anÏexpert€as€to€the€physical€existence€of€fatigue.Ìà àIt€might€also€be€noted€that€prior€to€Runcieððs€testimony,€no€evidence€hadÏbeen€presented€to€indicate€that€decedent€had€experienced€fatigue€on€the€day€of€theÏcollision.€€Conductor€Crowley,€who€had€known€decedent€for€several€years,€testifiedÍthat€on€that€fateful€day€decedent€seemed€alert€and€did€not€appear€to€be€fatigued.€ÏIn€addition,€it€should€also€be€noted€that€Runcieððs€opinion€was€based€entirely€uponÏthe€number€of€hours€worked€during€this€period€by€decedent€and€the€various€startÏand€stop€times€of€decedentððs€shifts.€€His€opinion€was€not€based€upon€anyÏexamination€of€either€decedent€or€his€medical€records€or€history.Ìà àDefendant€also€objected€to€the€admission€of€Dr.€Runcieððs€testimonyÏregarding€the€issue€of€fatigue€on€the€grounds€that€it€provided€no€causal€linkÏbetween€the€alleged€Ìfatigue€and€the€accident€in€question,€and€thus€was€highly€speculative.€€TheÏfollowing€excerpts€from€Dr.€Runcieððs€testimony€illustrates€the€point€being€made€byÏdefendant:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà0 àà àQ.à àNow,€assuming€those€facts,€do€you€have€sufficient€informationÏto€determine€whether€or€not€on€February€26,€1994€atÏapproximately€1:30€p.m.€that€Mr.€Plunk€was€suffering€theÏpsychological€effects€of€fatigue?Ìà8 àA.à àYes,€I€do.Ìà8 àQ.à àOkay.€€And€what€is€your€opinion?Ìà8 àA.à àI€would€think,€yes,€very€likely€he€did.ÌÌà@ à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà0 àà àQ.à àBased€upon€the€assumptions€that€I€read€to€you€a€moment€ago,Ïdid€you€have€enough€information€to€go€on€to€give€an€opinion€asÏto€whether€the€fatigue€that€Mr.€Plunk€suffered€from€at€thatÏtime€was€a€contributing€factor€in€this€train€accident?Ìà8 àA.à àYes.€€I€think€it€is€very€likely.ÌÌà@ à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà0 àà àA.à àThe€likelihood,€to€me,€that€he€was€fatigued€is€very€high.€€TheÏlinkage€of€that€to€causing€the€accident€is,€of€course,€not€soÏstrong.€€What€Iððm€saying€is€that€people€that€are€in€that€state€ofÏfatigue€are€much€more€likely€to€have€accidents.€€And€that€is€theÏonly€link€Iððve€made.€Ìà8 àQ.à àThat€is€as€far€as€you€can€go;€correct?Ìà8 àA.à àCorrect.Ìà@ à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà0 àà àQ.à àSo€letððs€make€it€clear.€€You€are€saying€that€someone€workingÏthese€many€hours,€as€[Plunk]€worked€in€February€of€1994,€isÏmore€likely€to€be€fatigued.€€That€is€the€number€one€thing€youÏare€saying?Ìà8 àA.à àUh„huh,€yes.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQ.à àThe€number€two€thing€you€are€saying€is€that€a€person€who€isÏfatigued€is€more€likely€to€make€mistakes?Ìà8 àA.à àYes.Ìà@ à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà0 àà àQ.à àThe€number€three€thing€you€are€not€saying€is€on€February€26,Ï1994€fatigue€made€Jerry€Plunk€actually€make€a€mistake€thatÏcaused€this€wreck;€you€cannot€go€that€far?Ìà8 àA.à àNo.€€It€is€impossible€to€say€that.ÌÌÌÓÓà àAs€stated€by€this€court€in€òòPrimm€v.€Wickes€Lumber€Co.óó,€845€S.W.2d€768,Ï770„71€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992):ÌÓÓÌà8 àà àThe€expertððs€opinion€must€substantially€assist€the€jury€in€itsÏdetermination€and€the€question€of€what€will€ð ðsubstantiallyðð€assist€theÏjury€is€one€for€the€trial€court€to€determine.€€The€expertððs€testimonyÏmust€satisfy€Rule€702€and€the€threshold€question€for€the€courtððsÏdetermination€is€whether€the€witnessðð€testimony€ð ðwill€substantiallyÍassist€the€trier€of€fact€to€understand€the€evidence€or€to€determine€aÏfact€in€issue.ðð€€The€Tennessee€standard€is€much€more€stringent€thanÏits€federal€counterpart€which€merely€requires€evidence€from€expertsÏwhich€ð ðassist€the€trier€of€factðð€rather€than€ð ðsubstantially€assist€theÏtrier€of€fact.ðð€€The€importance€of€the€courtððs€task€in€determiningÏwhether€the€evidence€will€substantially€assist€the€trier€of€fact€is€borneÏout€by€the€weight€given€to€an€expertððs€testimony.€€ð ðExpert€testimonyÏis€unique€because€experts€are€allowed€to€give€an€opinion€in€aÏparticular€situation€whereas€other€witnesses€are€prohibited€fromÏgiving€opinion€testimony€in€areas€where€expertise€is€not€required.ððÌÌà@ à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà àNumerous€Tennessee€cases€establish€a€necessary€degree€ofÏmedical€certainty€to€prove€causation.€€Testimony€which€amounts€toÏmere€speculation€is€not€evidence€which€establishes€proximate€cause.ÌÌà8 àà àWe€find€nothing€in€the€record€or€in€the€deposition€which€showsÏthat€the€plaintiff€laid€the€necessary€foundation€to€prove€medicalÏexpert€causation.€€There€is€no€evidence€to€establish€with€a€reasonableÏdegree€of€medical€certainty€that€plaintiffððs€heart€attack€and€bypassÏsurgery€in€1990€resulted€from€the€accident€with€defendant.ò òÌó óÌà@ à.€.€.€.€ÌÌà8 àà àTestimony€of€experts€as€to€the€probable€cause€of€injury€shouldÏbe€subject€to€the€same€rules€as€applied€supra€in€the€case€of€probableÏeffect€of€injury.Ìà à(Citations€omitted)(footnote€omitted).ÌÌÌÓÓà àWe€find€nothing€in€this€record€that€shows€that€the€plaintiff€laid€theÏnecessary€foundation€to€prove€causation.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€771,€òòLindsey€v.€MiamiÏDevelopment€Corp.óó,€689€S.W.2d€856,€862€(Tenn.€1985),€òòPorter€v.€Greenóó,€745ÏS.W.2d€874,€877€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987).Ìà àWe€are€of€the€opinion€that€due€to€the€speculative€nature€of€this€testimony,Ïit€did€not€stand€up€to€the€requirements€of€Rule€702€and€ð ðsubstantially€assist€theÏtrier€of€fact.ðð€€The€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€admitting€the€testimony€ofÏDr.€Runcie.€€Having€so€determined,€following€the€mandate€of€Rule€36(b),€T.R.A.P.,Ïwe€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€admittance€of€this€testimony€ð ðmore€probably€thanÏnot€affected€the€judgmentðð€in€this€case.€€We€therefore€hold€that€this€error€was€aÏreversible€error€and€as€a€result€thereof,€we€remand€this€case€to€the€trial€court€for€aÏnew€trial.Ìà@ àò òB.€Testimony€Pertaining€to€ð ðGood€Railroad€Practiceðð,€etc.ó óÌà àDefendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€plaintiff€toÏintroduce€testimony€by€three€employees€of€defendant€railroad,€said€witnesses€beingÏoffered€as€ð ðexpertsðð€who€testified€to€the€issue€of€ð ðgood€railroad€practice,ðð€inÏaddition€to€giving€testimony€as€to€whether€it€would€be€safer€for€railroad€to€haveÏfollowed€different€operating€procedures€than€those€in€place€at€the€time€of€theÏaccident.€€Ìà àThree€employees€of€defendant€were€called€to€testify€in€regard€to€the€aboveÏnamed€subjects.€€They€were€Q.€B.€Gray,€the€engineer€on€the€train€that€was€struckÏby€decedentððs€locomotive;€Royce€Crowley,€the€conductor€of€decedentððs€train;€andÏJames€Whitaker,€who€had€worked€for€defendant€railroad€for€a€number€of€years€asÍbrakeman,€flagman,€fireman,€conductor,€and€engineer.€€Ìà àDefendantððs€objection€to€the€trial€courtððs€allowing€these€three€employees€ofÏdefendant€to€testify€as€expert€witnesses€is€twofold.€€First,€defendant€contends€thatÏnone€of€these€witnesses€were€qualified€as€an€expert€so€as€to€permit€him€to€testifyÏas€to€what€he€believed€to€be€ð ðgood€railroad€practice.ðð€€The€second€objection€dealsÏwith€the€substance€of€what€the€witnesses€testified€to,€namely,€what€procedures€theyÏconsidered€to€be€ð ðsaferðð€than€the€rules€and€regulations€of€defendant€which€existedÏat€the€time€of€the€accident.€€Ìà àAs€for€each€of€these€three€witnesses,€their€testimony€as€to€what€was€ð ðgoodÏrailroad€practiceðð€amounted€to€their€stating€their€opinions€as€to€how€defendantÏcould€have€made€a€specific€method€of€procedure€more€safe.€€The€followingÏtestimony€by€witness€Q.€B.€Gray€demonstrates€the€point€we€have€attempted€toÏmake:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà0 àà àQ.à àIn€your€opinion€was€it€good€railroad€practice€to€use€Cynthia€asÏa€meet€point€based€on€your€years€of€experience€on€the€railroad?Ìà8 àà0 àà àA.à àWell,€I€donððt€know€of€any€other€„„€I€mean,€Cynthia€was€a€„„€thatÏwas€a€designated€siding.€€That€is€a€meeting€point€for€trains.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQ.à àBut€in€your€opinion€was€it€good€railroad€practice€to€use€it€as€aÏmeet€point?Ìà8 àà0 àà àA.à àIt€would€have€been€a€good€place€to€meet€trains.€€The€operatingÏprocedure€and€the€rules€that€they€use€to€meet€there€could€haveÏ„„€should€have€had€some€changes€made€in€them.ÌÌà@ à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà0 àà àQ.à àI€think€you€said€the€railroad€did€not€require€the€dispatcher€toÏgive€the€other€train€that€is€going€to€be€met€with€the€trackÏpermit€the€location€of€that€other€train€at€the€time€that€theÏtrack€permit€was€given?Ìà8 àA.à àNo,€sir.€€There€is€no€requirement€that€he€do€that.Ìà8 àà0 àà àQ.à àIn€your€opinion,€would€it€have€been€good€railroad€practice,Ïbased€on€your€twenty„three€years€experience€with€the€railroad,Ïthat€the€railroad€do€require€that€information€be€given?Ìà8 àà0 àà àA.à àIt€would€have€been€a€lot€safer€if€the€dispatcher€had€coordinatedÏthe€meets€with€the€trains€and€let€everybody€know€where€theÏother€train€was.ÌÌÌÓÓà àIn€the€opinion€of€this€court,€this€testimony€is€flawed€and€detrimental€to€theÏdefendant€for€several€reasons.€€First€of€all,€none€of€these€three€witnesses€wereÏqualified€to€give€the€testimony€that€they€gave.€€The€sum€and€substance€of€theÏexperience€of€each€of€them€showed€that€their€experience€in€railroading€wasÏacquired€solely€as€employees€of€defendant€in€various€positions€as€trainmen,€fromÏflagman€all€the€way€up€to€engineer€or€conductor.€€There€was€no€testimony€that€anyÏof€them€were€familiar€with€the€operations€of€any€other€railroad.€€There€was€noÏtestimony€that€any€of€them€had€been€trained€in€railroad€safety.€€There€was€noÏtestimony€that€any€of€them€had€any€knowledge€of€or€was€familiar€with€the€railroadÏindustry€in€general€insofar€as€it€pertained€to€the€subjects€about€which€theyÏtestified.€€Accordingly,€they€were€not€qualified€to€testify€as€experts€regardingÏindustry€standard€or€ð ðgood€railroad€practice.ððÌà àAs€can€be€noted€from€the€excerpts€of€testimony€above,€it€can€be€seen€that€inÏseeking€to€testify€regarding€ð ðgood€railroad€practice,ðð€each€witness€in€his€own€wayÏwould€state€that€such„and„such€procedure€or€practice€would€be€safer€thanÏdefendantððs€current€procedure€or€practice,€with€the€implication€that€this€is€whatÏthe€defendant€should€have€done€to€prevent€this€accident€from€happening.€€TheÏadmission€of€this€testimony€was€flawed€for€several€reasons,€even€if€it€be€assumedÏthat€one€or€more€of€the€witnesses€were€qualified€as€experts€to€so€testify.€Ìà àAny€case€presented€by€an€employee€under€FELA€must€include€all€the€sameÏelements€as€are€found€in€a€common„law€negligence€action.€€òòEwing€v.€St.€LouisÏSouthwestern€R.R.€Co.óó,€772€S.W.2d€774,€775€(Mo.€Ct.€App.€1989).€€Under€theÏFELA,€the€employer€is€not€made€an€insurer€of€the€safety€of€its€employees€whileÏthey€are€carrying€out€their€duties.€€As€stated€in€òòAtlantic€Coast€Line€R.€Co.€v.ÏDixonóó,€189€F.2d€525,€526„27€(5th€Cir.€1951):ÌÓÓÌà8 àThe€employer€is€not€held€to€an€absolute€responsibility€for€theÏreasonably€safe€condition€of€the€place,€tools€and€appliances,€but€onlyÏto€the€duty€of€exercising€reasonable€care€to€that€end,€the€degree€ofÏcare€being€commensurate€with€the€danger€reasonably€to€beÏanticipated.€.€.€.€Except€as€otherwise€provided€in€the€Act,€liability€isÏdetermined€by€commonlaw€principles€which€define€negligence€as€lackÏof€due€care€in€the€circumstances.ÌÌà@ à.€.€.€.€ÌÌà8 àThe€test€is€not€whether€the€tools€to€be€used€and€the€place€in€whichÍthe€work€is€to€be€performed€are€absolutely€safe,€nor€whether€theÏemployer€knew€the€same€to€be€unsafe,€but€whether€or€not€theÏemployer€has€exercised€reasonable€care€and€diligence€to€make€themÏsafe.€€ÌÌà@ à.€.€.€.€ÌÌà8 àThe€employer€is€not€required€to€furnish€the€employee€the€latest,€best,Ïor€most€perfect€appliances€with€which€to€work,€nor€to€discardÏstandard€appliances€already€in€use€upon€the€discovery€of€laterÏimprovements,€provided€those€in€use€are€reasonably€safe€and€suitable.Ìà à(Citations€omitted).ÌÌÌÓÓà àFurthermore,€assuming€first€of€all€that€the€witnesses€had€been€qualified€asÏexperts€in€this€area,€which€we€find€they€were€not,€and€assuming€that€they€didÏtestify€as€to€the€customs€of€other€railroads€in€the€region€in€handling€railroad€trafficÏsuch€as€in€the€case€under€consideration,€which€they€did€not,€to€have€given€properÏprotection€to€defendant€the€jury€should€have€also€been€instructed€that€custom€wasÏnot€controlling€and€that€the€customary€way€may€or€may€not€involve€negligence,€butÏthat€it€could€be€considered€along€with€other€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€case.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòThompson€v.€Campóó,€163€F.2d€396,€402€(6th€Cir.€1947).€€No€such€instructionÏwas€given€in€the€case€at€bar.€€Ìà àThere€are€cases€from€other€jurisdictions€that€support€the€conclusions€thatÏwe€have€reached€regarding€this€testimony.€€One€is€òòStillman€v.€Norfolk€&€WesternÏRy.€Co.óó,€811€F.2d€834€(4th€Cir.€1987).€€The€basic€facts€are€these:€the€plaintiff€wasÍemployed€by€railroad€as€an€apprentice€car„man,€which€included€installing€large,Ïheavy€gears€in€railroad€cars.€€The€installation€was€by€means€of€a€forklift.€€One€dayÏwhile€a€gear€was€suspended€from€the€blades€of€a€forklift,€it€quit€operating.€€WithÏthe€gear€still€suspended€from€the€forklift,€the€plaintiff€placed€himself€partially€underÏthe€blades€of€the€forklift€and€attempted€to€free€the€chain.€€At€this€point€the€bladesÏfell€on€him€and€injured€him.€€Following€a€jury€verdict€for€the€railroad,€the€plaintiffÏappealed.€€On€appeal,€the€plaintiff€contended€that€the€district€court€committedÏprejudicial€error€in€excluding€his€proffered€testimony€concerning€a€safer,€alternativeÏway€to€install€gears€in€railroad€cars.€€In€affirming€the€district€court,€the€court€ofÏappeals€stated:ÌÓÓÌà8 àWe€think€that€the€district€court€acted€properly€in€sustaining€theÏRailroadððs€objection€to€Stillmanððs€testimony€concerning€a€safer,Ïalternative€way€to€install€gears€in€railroad€cars.€€As€the€district€courtÏcorrectly€observed,€the€question€the€jury€had€to€decide€was€whetherÏthe€Railroad€had€exercised€reasonable€care€for€the€safety€of€Stillman,Ïnot€whether€the€Railroad€could€have€employed€a€safer€method€forÏinstalling€gears.ÌÌÌÓÓà àIn€òòTaylor€v.€Illinois€Cent.€R.R.€Co.óó,€8€F.3d€584€(7th€Cir.€1993),€Taylor,€aÏconductor€on€a€train€of€defendant,€attempted€to€board€the€train€while€it€was€beingÏmoved€at€approximately€seven€to€ten€miles€an€hour.€€At€the€point€he€attempted€toÏboard,€the€ground€underneath€the€tracks€consisted€of€ð ðmainlineðð€ballast,€which€isÍprimarily€limestone€or€other€rocks€between€one€to€three€inches€in€diameter.€€As€heÏattempted€to€board€the€train,€his€left€foot€slipped,€which€resulted€in€a€broken€leg.€ÏOne€of€the€plaintiffððs€contentions€was€that€the€railroad€was€negligent€in€not€usingÏð ðyardðð€ballast,€a€smaller€ballast€consisting€of€smaller€rocks,€in€lieu€of€the€mainlineÏballasts.€€The€plaintiff€contended€that€yard€ballast€would€have€provided€a€safer€andÏmore€stable€footing€than€the€larger€mainline€ballast.Ìà àThe€plaintiff€sought€to€introduce€the€testimony€of€an€expert€witnessÏregarding€unsafe€ballast€conditions.€€The€witness€had€worked€for€another€railroadÏfor€over€forty€years,€during€which€time€he€had€served€as€a€conductor,€brakeman,Ïtrainmaster€and€a€variety€of€other€positions.€€He€was€not,€however,€an€engineer€andÏhad€never€worked€in€the€Maintenance€of€Way€Department,€the€departmentÏresponsible€for€the€ballast€underneath€the€tracks.€€The€witnessðð€testimony€sought€toÏbe€offered€dealt€with€the€different€ballast€sizes€and€would€have€stated€that€theÏplaintiffððs€accident€likely€could€have€been€prevented€had€the€railroad€spread€smallerÏballast€on€top€of€the€larger€ballast.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€railroadððs€motion€toÏexclude€the€witnessðð€testimony.€€The€exclusion€of€this€evidence€was€affirmed€by€theÏCourt€of€Appeals€on€several€grounds.€€One€point€is€relevant€here,€in€that€theÏplaintiff€contended€that€the€witnessðð€testimony€about€other€locations€using€smallerÏballast€would€have€proven€that€there€was€a€safer€alternative.€€In€response€to€that,Íthe€court€stated€that:€ð ðHowever,€proof€of€a€safer€alternative€is€not€necessarily€proofÏof€negligenceð"ðIllinois€Central€could€have€provided€a€reasonably€safe€workplaceÏnotwithstanding€the€fact€that€safer€workplace€alternatives€exist.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€586.Ìà àAs€already€stated,€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏadmitting€this€testimony€from€all€three€of€plaintiffððs€witnesses.€€We€also€are€of€theÏopinion€that€this€error€involved€a€substantial€right€of€defendant,€its€negligence€orÏat€least€the€degree€and€extent€of€its€negligence,€and€ð ðmore€probably€than€notÏaffected€the€judgment.ðð€€Our€conclusion€as€to€this€error€also€requires€that€the€caseÏbe€remanded€for€a€new€trial.€€Ìà àà@ àò òC.€Testimony€of€Plaintiffððs€Economist.ó óÌà àPrior€to€trial,€defendant€filed€a€motion€òòin€limineóó€seeking€to€exclude€theÏtestimony€of€Dr.€Fred€Johnson,€an€expert€economist,€on€the€grounds€that€it€wasÏinadmissable€due€to€his€failure€to€properly€calculate€the€future€earnings€ofÏdecedent.€€This€motion€was€denied.€€When€Dr.€Johnson€was€presented€at€trial€as€aÏwitness,€defendantððs€objection€to€his€testimony€was€overruled.€€From€reading€theÏtranscript€in€this€regard,€it€appears€that€the€sum€and€substance€of€defendantððsÏobjection€was€that€Dr.€Johnson€did€not€adjust€his€final€figures€of€the€amount€of€lostÏfuture€earnings€by€taking€into€account€certain€retirement€taxes€based€upon€theÏpayroll,€paid€by€both€decedent€and€the€railroad.€€Under€the€Railroad€RetirementÍAct,€there€are€two€levels€of€withholding€in€regard€to€an€employeeððs€wages:€Tier€IÏand€Tier€II.€€Defendantððs€specific€objection€to€Dr.€Johnsonððs€testimony€was€that€heÏdid€not€reduce€his€estimate€of€decedentððs€future€earnings€by€the€amount€whichÏwould€have€been€deducted€from€decedentððs€paycheck€under€the€Act.€€Ìà àWhile€the€record€reflects€that€Dr.€Johnson€did€not€include€specifically€Tier€IÏand€Tier€II€taxes€in€his€computations,€he€explained€at€length€that€this€omission€wasÏdue€to€the€offsetting€payment€by€the€railroad€which,€in€effect,€made€theÏwithdrawals€under€Tiers€I€and€II€negligible€when€calculating€decedentððs€futureÏincome.€€Ìà àIn€òòNorfolk€&€Western€Ry.€Co.€v.€Liepeltóó,€444€U.S.€490,€100€S.Ct.€755,€62ÏL.Ed.2d€689€(1980),€the€Supreme€Court€held€that€questions€concerning€theÏmeasure€of€damages€in€a€FELA€action€are€federal€in€character.€€This€rule€was€to€beÏapplied€thereafter€even€though€the€suit€was€brought€in€state€court.€€òòId.óó€at€493„94.€ÏIn€òòUnited€States€v.€L.E.€Cooke€Co.,€Inc.óó,€991€F.2d€336,€342€(6th€Cir.€1993),€theÏcourt€said:ÌÓÓÌà8 àWhere€an€expertððs€testimony€amounts€to€ð ðmere€guess€or€speculation,ððÏthe€court€should€exclude€his€testimony,€but€where€the€opinion€has€aÏreasonable€factual€basis,€it€should€not€be€excluded.€€Rather,€it€is€up€toÏopposing€counsel€to€inquire€into€the€expertððs€factual€basis.€.€.€.€anyÏweaknesses€in€the€factual€basis€of€an€expert€witnessðð€opinion,€includingÏunfamiliarity€with€standards,€bear€on€the€weight€of€the€evidenceÏrather€than€on€its€admissibility.Ìà à(Citations€omitted).ÌÌÌÓÓThe€record€reflects€that€defendantððs€counsel€cross„examined€Dr.€Johnson€in€lengthÏpertaining€to€the€calculations€he€had€made€and€the€various€data€he€utilized€thatÏformed€the€basis€of€his€estimate€of€decedentððs€future€income.€€In€our€opinion,€theÏtrial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€overruling€defendantððs€motion€andÏthereby€admitting€into€evidence€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Johnson.ÌÓÓÌà@ àò òIII.€The€Conflict€of€Interest€Issue.ó óÌÌÌÓÓà àThis€last€issue€raised€by€defendant€is€somewhat€unusual.€€However,€becauseÏit€involves€the€question€of€the€ethical€conduct€of€a€nonresident€attorney,€whoÏnonetheless€is€a€member€of€the€Tennessee€Bar,€we€feel€this€should€be€addressed.€ÏWhile€this€case€was€still€under€the€jurisdiction€of€Judge€Wyeth€Chandler,€counselÏfor€defendant€filed€a€motion€asking€the€court€to€disqualify€Frank€O.€Burge,€Jr.,€andÏall€associated€counsel,€from€representing€plaintiff,€alleging€that€they€wereÏrepresenting€a€conflict€in€interest.€€The€interests€at€that€time€were€not€named.€€Ìà àThe€record€reflects€that€Gray€and€Gandy,€the€engineer€and€conductorÏrespectively€on€the€southbound€train€that€was€struck€head„on€by€the€train€drivenÏby€Plunk,€are€represented€by€Mr.€Burge€in€suits€filed€in€the€state€of€Mississippi,Ïwhich€contain€complaints€with€allegations€that€defendant€was€vicariously€liableÍbecause€of€the€negligence€of€its€own€employees,€Plunk€and€Crowley.€€Ìà àUltimately,€Judge€Chandler€entered€an€order€directing€that€Mr.€Burge€andÏSteven€Leffler€should€withdraw€from€their€representation€of€Royce€E.€Crowley€inÏhis€personal€injury€suit€against€defendant€railroad€in€Tennessee.€€In€addition,€theyÏwere€directed€to€ð ðchange€the€allegations€of€the€subject€Mississippi€cases€in€such€aÏway€as€to€dismiss€allegations€of€negligence€against€any€other€plaintiffs€in€all€cases.ðð€Ìà àThe€record€reflects€that€plaintiffððs€counsel€subsequently€withdrew€from€theirÏrepresentation€of€Crowley€in€his€personal€injury€suit€in€Tennessee.€€The€recordÏreflects€that€prior€to€trial,€after€Judge€McCarroll€assumed€jurisdiction€over€thisÏcase,€counsel€for€defendant€filed€a€motion€seeking€to€have€the€court€compelÏplaintiff€to€ð ðdismiss€any€and€all€allegations€of€negligence€against€the€plaintiffs€in€allÏthe€cases€arising€out€of€the€incident€from€which€this€suit€arose.ðð€€No€order€hasÏbeen€entered€as€of€the€appeal€of€this€case€in€response€to€this€motion.Ìà àCounsel€for€defendant€asserts€that€ð ðplaintiffððs€counsel€repeatedly€representedÏto€the€trial€court€that€he€had€withdrawn€allegations€of€vicarious€liability€due€to€theÏacts€of€Plunk€and€Crowley€in€the€Gray€and€Gandy€cases.ðð€€The€record€reflects€thatÏthis€matter€was€submitted€to€Lance€Bracy€of€the€Tennessee€Board€of€ProfessionalÏResponsibility€by€Judge€McCarroll€for€an€independent€assessment€and€forÏrecommendations€to€the€trial€court.€€After€reviewing€the€ð ðfactual€scenarioððÍsubmitted€by€the€trial€judge€to€the€Board,€the€Board€responded€in€a€lengthy€reportÏand€concluded€at€that€time€that€ð ðfrom€the€sole€perspective€of€the€disciplinary€rules,Ïhowever,€Disciplinary€Counsel€sees€no€conflict€of€interest€between€the€variousÏclaims€of€vicarious€liability€in€this€litigation.ðð€€Ìà àIn€his€report€to€the€trial€court,€the€Chief€Disciplinary€Counsel€of€the€BoardÏpointed€out€that€ordinarily€the€issue€of€conflict€of€interest€was€not€designed€to€beÏutilized€by€the€opposing€party,€regardless€of€motive.€€We€have€no€quarrel€with€thisÏstatement.€€However,€inasmuch€as€we€have€the€privilege€of€looking€at€this€recordÏafter€the€fact,€there€were€some€factual€developments€that€took€place€that€did€notÏexist€at€the€time€the€memorandum€was€submitted€to€the€Disciplinary€Board.€€Ìà àThis€is€a€complex€set€of€circumstances,€and€inasmuch€as€the€practice€ofÏcounsel€for€plaintiff€has€been€called€into€question€in€both€the€trial€court€and€in€thisÏcourt,€without€passing€judgment€either€way,€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€now€thatÏthe€underlying€case€has€been€tried€and€heard€on€appeal,€it€should€be€looked€at€in€itsÏtotality€and€a€decision€reached€based€upon€all€the€facts€that€might€be€available.€ÏAccordingly,€when€a€final€order€is€entered€in€this€appeal,€either€by€this€court€or€inÏthe€event€of€an€appeal€to€the€Supreme€Court,€we€respectfully€direct€the€clerk€of€theÏcourt€to€send€the€appropriate€portions€of€this€record€to€the€Board€of€ProfessionalÏResponsibility€for€review.€€In€addition,€we€respectfully€request€and€recommend€thatÍcounsel€for€both€plaintiff€and€defendant€work€together€in€abridging€this€record,Ïinasmuch€as€there€are€hundreds€of€pages€to€the€transcript,€and€a€three€volumeÏtechnical€record.Ìà àIn€sum,€for€the€reasons€herein€stated,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€isÏreversed,€the€jury€verdict€is€set€aside,€and€this€case€is€remanded€to€the€CircuitÏCourt€of€Shelby€County€for€a€new€trial,€not€inconsistent€with€the€provisions€of€thisÏopinion.€€Costs€in€this€cause€are€œtaxed€one„half›€to€œplaintiff€and€one„half€toÏdefendant,›€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.€€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àTOMLIN,€S.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCRAWFORD,€P.J.€W.S.à à€€€€€€(CONCURS)ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àLILLARD,€J.à à€€€€€€à à€€€€€€(CONCURS)Ì