Court Opinion

ID: 9524533
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:53:50.147552+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:10:49.749143
License: Public Domain

RATLIFF, Judge,
concurring in result.
Liability under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act generally is predicated upon negligence on the part of the carrier subject to the provisions of the act. 32 Am.Jur.2d Federal Employers’ Liability, Etc. § 26 (1982). However, violation of certain statutory safety requirements have been held to give rise to liability on the part of the carrier without a showing of negligence. Id. § 33. In other words, the obligations of these statutory safety requirements are absolute and, consequently, form the basis for strict liability for violations. Id., § 34. Specifically, violations of the Safety Appliance Acts and the Boiler Inspection Act have been held to give rise to such strict liability. Id., §§ 33-40. The majority here would extend the strict liability concept to violations of OSHA regulations. In the absence of agreement by the authorities as to whether violations of administrative regulations are negligence per se or merely evidence of negligence, see 57 Am.Jur.2d Negligence §§ 271-73, I am unable to join in making such violations the basis of the imposition of strict liability. However, since such violations are at least evidence of negligence, if not negligence per se, it was error to exclude evidence of such OSHA regulations and the violations thereof. Therefore, I concur in the result reached in this case.