Henning v. Union Pacific Railroad

BALDOCK, Circuit Judge,

dissenting as to Part III.A.

The Court first decides the district court properly deemed irrelevant evidence that Shockey did not possess a valid driver’s licence at the time of his accident. See Court’s Op. at 1217-18 (citing Oklahoma law). The Court then concludes “Evidence that Shockey was fifteen years old, combined with evidence that he was not permitted to drive the car, is the equivalent of evidence that he did not possess a valid driver’s license,” and, therefore, inadmissible. Id. at 1217-18.1 The Court de*1223dares such evidence inadmissible because “[wjhether ...…