With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that the railroad was negligent. Since plaintiff has presented no objective evidence to disprove defendant’s asserted sound levels, those figures must be assumed to be true for purposes of this motion. If in fact, as the LIRR asserts, the sound levels of its horns were in compliance with both the FRSA minimum standard and with OSHA’s regulations, the plaintiff will have a difficult, if not impossible, time establishing that the railroad was negligent. See Lessee v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 38 Wash. App. 802, 804-07, 690 P.2d 596, 598-600 (Wash.Ct.App.1984) (finding that where the time weighted average of noise exposure was below OSHA levels requiring protection, plaintiff had failed to demonstrate negligence); see also Broussard v. Union Pac. R. Co.,. 700 So.2d 542, 550 (La.Ct.App.1997) (<HOLDING>). In some cases where technical issues relating

A: holding that simply establishing that the workplace is noisy fails to meet the legal requirements for proving negligence
B: holding where party fails to challenge specificity of pleading it waives right to claim that pleading fails to meet legal requirements
C: holding that the burden of proving lack of negligence is on the owner
D: holding that if an applicant fails to meet the standard for asylum he a fortiori fails to meet the requirements for withholding of removal and relief under the cat
A.