Opinion ID: 1136285
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: OSHA Regulations

Text: As already stated, the admission or suppression of evidence is within the discretion of the trial judge and will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion. General Motors Corp. v. Jackson, 636 So.2d 310, 314 (Miss. 1992), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 928, 115 S.Ct. 317, 130 L.Ed.2d 279 (1994); Walker v. Graham, 582 So.2d 431, 432 (Miss. 1991). Great deference is given to a trial court's decision on the admission or exclusion of evidence due to relevance. Sperry-New Holland v. Prestage, 617 So.2d 248, 260 (Miss. 1993). The Occupational Safety and Health Act mandates the promulgation of safety and health standards by the U.S. Secretary of Labor. Such standards have the force of federal law and violations are punishable by specified criminal and civil penalties. 29 U.S.C. §§ 654-56. While there is a split of authority among state courts as to whether OSHA regulations are admissible as evidence of the appropriate standard of care for purposes of proving negligence, this Court has had no opportunity to make its determination of this issue. However, in Catholic Diocese of Natchez-Jackson v. Jaquith, 224 So.2d 216, 220 (Miss. 1969), this Court stated that with regard to governmental safety codes and regulations, [a] majority of the states follow the rule that such codes are admissible only when they have been given compulsory force by the state legislatures... . Mississippi has followed the majority rule for a number of years and we think properly so. (citations omitted). Unlike some other state legislatures, the Mississippi Legislature has specifically declined to give OSHA regulations compulsory force under state law. Miss. Code Ann. § 71-1-1(f) (1972). In Otto v. Specialties, Inc., 386 F. Supp. 1240, 1244-45 (N.D.Miss. 1974), the District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi was forced to make an Erie determination of whether OSHA regulations were admissible as evidence of negligence under Mississippi negligence law. In finding the regulations to be not admissible, the district court stated: We believe the Supreme Court of Mississippi, if faced with this question, would recognize, as we do, that what is at stake here is a question of judicial buttressing of legislative goals. We believe that with this recognition would come a realization that, before the judiciary undertakes to supplement legislatively designed sanctions it should first inquire whether any supplementation was foreseen or is needed. Such an inquiry into OSHA has been made by the federal courts, which have concluded that no private civil remedy is needed to fulfill the goals established by Congress in its adoption of the statute. That this determination was made in the context of a federal civil remedy and not within the framework of the negligence per se doctrine is to us irrelevant, since both concepts share a common raison d'etre  a judicial addition to statutory penalties thought to be inadequate to the purposes the legislative branch sought to promote. We concede that the Mississippi courts need not be bound in this matter by the federal determination of OSHA's purpose and effect. We believe, however, that the Supreme Court of Mississippi would be persuaded by the logic of those opinions to refuse to permit the utilization of OSHA safety standards in this case, either as conclusive proof or evidence of negligence by [the defendant]. Otto, 386 F. Supp. at 1245. We are persuaded by the district court's reasoning and hold that, in light both of it and of this Court's clearly stated rule that governmental codes and regulations are not admissible unless given compulsory force by the state legislature, evidence of OSHA regulations is not admissible to show negligence. Regarding the admissibility of OSHA violations for the purpose of impeaching the testimony of W.C. Fore, the trial court ruled before trial that such evidence was inadmissible, and instructed Mr. Fore prior to his testimony that no mention should be made of violations of OSHA standards. Thus, when counsel for Sumrall asked Mr. Fore about his compliance with federal regulations, counsel either was referring to regulations other than OSHA or was ignoring the court's ruling, apparently the former since he wanted to impeach Mr. Fore's testimony with evidence of OSHA violations. In denying the impeachment request, the trial judge stated: If there is some other standard that he has now violated, then I will allow [counsel] to go into those specifically. And he can ask him about those standards, industry wide or some safety standard that he thinks that they violated. But I'm not going to let him go into OSHA. I'm going to stay away from it. I think it would just point up  I don't think you can ask him, did you violate  did he follow all standards and then when he says, yes, use that to open the door as to going into OSHA. I just don't think that's proper because then he'd have to say, he'd have to say no if that  if we were going to cover OSHA. And I already instructed him that he could [not] go into that.       I don't believe that if I say that you can't go into OSHA, that you can get it through the back door by saying  by admitting that you violated some standard and then just leave it out there, that there's some standard that's been violated and then I'm not going to let you go into what it was or where it's from or no mention of it and they can't cross examine him on it because they can't go into it. I don't think that was  I do not think that is the way it should go and if there's some other specific violation of some other standard, safety code or some other violation I will allow you to go into that specifically. However, I am not going to allow you to go into OSHA. We agree with the trial court that Sumrall may not introduce otherwise inadmissible evidence through the back door by impeaching Mr. Fore's response to a question that should not have been asked in the first place. There can be little doubt that counsel's true intent was not to impeach Mr. Fore's credibility, but rather it was to present evidence of OSHA violations which he could not introduce otherwise. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow this evidence.