With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". with Appellants. The trial judge ruled that the standard of care is established by federal law and granted summary judgment on the basis of, among other things, preemption. Based on this ruling, the trial court did not consider evidence of Respondents’ deviation from their own internal track maintenance policies. We agree that the standard of care is established by federal law; however, we do not agree that this prevents the court from considering evidence that Respondents violated their own internal polices. Although federal regulations provide the standard of care, Respondents’ deviation from their own internal policies is, nevertheless, admissible as evidence that Respondents deviated from that standard of care. Cf. Ybarra v. Burlington N., Inc., 689 F.2d 147, 150 (8th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we hold that the trial court

A: holding that when the evidence shows that the railroad customarily does not enforce a safety rule the jury is entitled to consider whether that custom constituted negligence and whether it caused in whole or in part the plaintiffs injury
B: holding that when determining prejudice under the objective test relevant considerations include 1 whether the extrinsic evidence was received by the jury and the manner in which it was received 2 whether it was available to the jury for a lengthy period of time 3 whether it was discussed and considered extensively by the jury 4 whether it was introduced before a jury verdict was reached and if so at what point during the deliberations and 5 whether it was reasonably likely to affect the verdict considering the strength of the governments case and whether the governments case outweighed any possible prejudice caused by the extrinsic evidence
C: holding that the issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims
D: holding that the basis of liability is negligence and not injury
A.