Court Opinion

ID: 9770139
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 15:47:37.392659+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:14.798562
License: Public Domain

ADKINS, J.,
concurring.
Respectfully, I join in the judgment only. The Majority rejects the Respondent’s contentions that C&M owed a duty *300of care to Nocar pursuant to MOSHA, and that expert testimony should have been admitted to support the MOSHA claim. I agree with that reasoning and result and would not go further. This decision upholds a jury verdict in favor of the Petitioners, who were defendants. There is no need to add dictum delving into the issue of whether Petitioners win for the additional reason that the Circuit Court should have granted a motion for judgment on grounds of assumption of the risk.