Opinion ID: 1393548
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jury instruction regarding violation of an OSHA regulation as evidence of negligence

Text: Appellant does not dispute that violation of a regulation is evidence of negligence. Further, Appellant argues that no evidence existed which showed that NGP was the entity required to comply with the regulations at issue. Among the jury instructions was the following: Violation of a statute is evidence of negligence. If you determine that a party violated a statute on the occasion in question and that the violation was a [proximate] [direct] cause of the occurrence, then you may consider that fact together with all the other facts and circumstances in evidence in determining whether or not the party was negligent at the time of the occurrence. The OSHA regulation in question reads as follows: No person shall cause the servicing work to commence until the contractor or subcontractor, as appropriate, has declared his equipment and employees are safely prepared to proceed. Rules and Regulations for Oil and Gas Well Servicing, State of Wyoming Occupational Health and Safety Department, Chapter II, Section 1(f) (1990). We find no error in this instruction. The regulation is self-explanatory; it applies to any person who causes the oil and gas well servicing work to commence. The issue is not whether NGP was obligated to enforce this regulation, rather, the issue is whether NGP violated its obligation by causing servicing work to commence. Substantial evidence was adduced which showed that either TWS or NGP (as well as their employees), or both, commenced the servicing work before the contractor or subcontractor had declared that the equipment was safely prepared to proceed. Sufficient evidence existed on the record to allow this instruction to be submitted to the jury. The jury was properly instructed.