With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". loss of hearing was caused by exposure to the horn blasts (Danziger Aff. ¶ 19), he has not presented an analysis of the levels of noise exposure experienced by plaintiff, except to note that even noise found to be permissible under OSHA regulations might still cause injury. {Id. ¶ 16). The problem is that in the absence of any evidence as to the noise levels actually experienced by Mr. Tufar-iello, it is impossible for anyone to o railroad safety are concerned, courts have held that the failure to present expert testimony on those issues meant that the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case. See, e.g., In re Amtrak “Sunset Ltd. ” Train Crash, 188 F.Supp.2d at 1347; see also Simpson v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corp., 957 F.Supp. 136, 138 (N.D.Ill.1997) (<HOLDING>); Turner v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 785

A: holding the connection is an element
B: holding that there must be a causal connection between the advertising activity and the injury alleged in the underlying complaint
C: holding that to show a causal connection the plaintiff must demonstrate a relationship between the misconduct and the plaintiffs injury
D: holding that expert testimony usually is necessary to establish a causal connection between an injury and its source unless the connection is a kind that would be obvious to laymen such as a broken leg from being struck by an automobile
D.