Opinion ID: 2227985
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Effect of OSHA Violations.

Text: Goodyear challenges instruction No. 34, which stated: Mr. Leaf was required to exercise reasonable care for his own safety. This means that, if, in the exercise of ordinary care under the circumstances, he could have taken some particular action to avoid an injury, then he was under a duty to take such action. In this case Goodyear claims that Mr. Leaf unreasonably failed to take action to avoid an injury by failing to follow Iowa's occupational safety and health laws which direct a person who is servicing a tire to: a. Not inflate a tire unless and until it is contained in an approved safety cage; b. Use an approved air line assembly with clip-on chuck, extension hose and inline pressure gage to inflate truck tires; c. Stand away from the immediate area and trajectory zone of the tire while inflating it. Goodyear urges us to reexamine and extend the negligence-per se rule reaffirmed in Wiersgalla v. Garrett, 486 N.W.2d 290 (Iowa 1992). There, we said that, if a statute or regulation such as an OSHA standard provides a rule of conduct specifically designed for the safety and protection of a certain class of persons, and a person within that class receives injuries as a proximate result of a violation of the statute or regulation, the injuries would be actionable, as ... negligence per se. Id. at 292 (quoting Koll v. Manatt's Transp. Co., 253 N.W.2d 265, 270 (Iowa 1977)). The injuries would not be actionable as a negligence-per se claim unless the harm for which the action is brought must be of the kind which the statute was intended to prevent; and the person injured, in order to recover, must be within the class which [the statute] was intended to protect. Id. Wiersgalla held that an employer's violation of an OSHA or IOSHA standard would be negligence per se only in an action by an employee against an employer. In other cases, the violation of an OSHA standard is only evidence of negligence. Id. Goodyear argues the policies underlying Wiersgalla also support a holding that an employee's violation of an OSHA regulation should be considered negligence per se because the rules were enacted for the protection of employees. OSHA standards were designed to protect employees from unsafe conditions in the workplace created or permitted by the employer. They were not intended to establish negligence per se in an action by an employee against a third party. We adhere to the rule of Wiersgalla and reject Goodyear's negligence-per se argument. We find no error in any of the matters raised on appeal and therefore affirm. AFFIRMED. All justices concur except LAVORATO and CARTER, JJ., who concur specially.