X hits on this document





21 / 60

over a mile apart at Ridgeland Avenue and Central Avenue (Tr. 1239, 1349, 1886, 2441),

there also should have been one roughly half-way in between at Austin (Tr. 1274). Dr.

Berg also asserted that defendants should have built chain-link fencing to “channelize”

pedestrians toward the crossing points at Austin, Ridgeland, and Central. Tr. 1254. In Dr.

Berg’s view, this fencing was necessary to “discourage crossing at other points,”

although it could not “prevent it” entirely. Tr. 1254, 1257. Dr. Berg opined that these

measures would have “achieve[d] higher levels of safety,” although he admitted that they

would not have prevented all trespassing. Tr. 1365.

In support of their contention that Dr. Berg’s testimony was too unreliable to be

admitted, defendants pointed out that chain-link fencing likely would be cut and,

moreover, that fencing alone could never be effective, because what was required was not

merely providing crossing points, but rather completely separating would-be train

flippers from the tracks. Tr. 147-49. They explained that Dr. Berg’s conclusions—that

defendants feasibly could have constructed channeling fencing and a new crossing at

Austin and that the absence of these measures caused Choate’s accident—were without

factual foundation. Tr. 147-49, 153. Dr. Berg had not considered a number of issues

bearing on the feasibility of those projects, such as an accurate analysis of the cost, the

need for approval from the Illinois Commerce Commission, coordination with adjacent

municipalities and property owners, and compliance with environmental, accessibility,

and zoning regulations. C3383-3464.

At trial, defendants presented expert testimony questioning whether the

improvements suggested by Dr. Berg could be constructed at all, much less at a

reasonable cost, given a host of factors that Dr. Berg failed to consider. E.g., Tr. 1311

  • -

    12 -

Document info
Document views210
Page views210
Page last viewedWed Jan 18 18:53:26 UTC 2017