Court Opinion

ID: 9549025
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:12:15.154657+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:19:45.326273
License: Public Domain

RABINOWITZ, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent from the court’s conclusion that the superior court’s failure to qualify the professional standard of care instruction (Instruction 23) in accordance with appellants’ request can be considered harmless error. The state’s expert witness testified that OSHA inspectors were generally less well-trained than they should have been. Thus, the jury could have found for the state on the ground that Tauriainen’s conduct was not negligent when judged against the OSHA standard despite the fact that the state might have been found directly negligent as a result of its failure to exercise reasonable care in the conduct of safety investigations. Given this possibility, I cannot conclude that the superior court’s decision to give Instruction 23, when considered in conjunction with the court’s other negligence instructions, was harmless error.