Court Opinion

ID: 9757227
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 22:26:24.62087+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:36.650457
License: Public Domain

WIEAND, Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the decision to reverse and remand for a new trial. However, I would rest the granting of a new trial solely on the refusal of the trial court, upon request, to instruct the jury on the significance of the OSHA regulations which had been introduced into evidence. I find no other error.
As a general rule, “[a]n independent contractor is in possession of the necessary area occupied by the work contemplated under the contract and his responsibility replaces that of the owner who is, during the performance of the work by the contractor, out of possession and without control over the work or the premises.” Hader v. Coplay Cement Mfg. Co., 410 Pa. 139, 151, 189 A.2d 271, 277 (1963). See also: Bitting v. Wolfe, 368 Pa. 167, 82 A.2d 21 (1951); Engle v. Reider, 366 Pa. 411, 77 A.2d 621 (1951), overruled on other grounds, Mathis v. Lukens Steel Co., 415 Pa. 262, 203 A.2d 482 (1964). It is only upon completion of the work that the owner is expected to make such inspection as a reasonably prudent lay person would be capable of performing. Doerr v. Rand’s, 340 Pa. 183, 186, 16 A.2d 377, 378 (1940); Martin v. Wentz, 145 Pa.Super. 424, 429, 21 A.2d 444, 446 (1941); 21 P.L.E. Labor § 203 (1959).
*557In the instant case, the Reverend George H. Wood had contracted with Smith and Whittaker to do some masonry-work at his home. A dispute arose concerning the placement of the final courses of brick. The masons requested Wood to come outside and advise them how he wanted the work completed. Wood ascended the scaffolding, but fell upon reaching the top and sustained injuries which caused his death. In a trial to recover survival and wrongful death damages, his executor contended that he had been “invited” to go upon the scaffolding to inspect the work. The contractor’s evidence, however, was to the effect that Wood had been told not to climb upon the scaffold, that he could see the work from the ground.
This issue was properly left to the jury upon adequate instructions. It was not error, as Judge Cercone would hold, to allow a jury to find that the owner was a trespasser if he ignored the contractor’s warning and climbed upon scaffolding which was in the possession and control of the masonry contractor. He was not privileged to enter upoh the scaffolding, which was under the control of the contractor, without the contractor’s consent. Therefore, I find no error in this aspect of the case.
In Gradel v. Inouye, 491 Pa. 534, 421 A.2d 674 (1980), the Supreme Court held that the trial court had properly refused a point for charge that an award would not be subject to federal income tax. During the course of discussing this issue, the Supreme Court said: “[ijncome tax as it relates to damages should be mentioned neither in argument nor in jury instructions.” Id., 491 Pa. at 547, 421 A.2d at 680. A panel of this Court, in Logan v. Stelmach, 352 Pa.Super. 181, 472 A.2d 708 (1984) interpreted Gradel v. Inouye, supra, as mandating a new trial whenever the subject of income tax has been mentioned in jury instructions, even though the applicable law has been correctly stated. I disagree with this interpretation. The holding of Gradel was that it was proper to refuse a point for charge regarding the non-taxability of a verdict. The suggestion that income tax should not be mentioned in any way during *558argument or in jury instructions was dictum. That dictum does not require a new trial where, as here, the jury has been correctly instructed that it should neither “add anything or subtract anything to this award by reason of income taxes, for the simple reason that an award of this nature is not taxable.”
The trial court erred, however, when it refused a requested jury instruction that a failure to construct and maintain scaffolding in accordance with requirements of OSHA was evidence of negligence. Appellant had produced evidence that the masonry contractor’s scaffolding did not comply with OSHA or industry standards. An expert witness explained those deviations to the jury. Therefore, the jury should have been instructed regarding the significance of the deviations.
A failure to comply with OSHA regulations is not negligence per se, but it is some evidence of negligence. Brogley v. Chambersburg Engineering Co., 306 Pa.Super. 316, 452 A.2d 743 (1982). Appellant’s requested instruction was in accord with this rule of law. The trial court refused the request, and gave no other instruction regarding the significance of the expert’s testimony or the OSHA regulations.
Appellee argues that the omission was harmless. Although it must be conceded that OSHA regulations are intended to require minimum safety standards for employees, the decedent, if he had been invited to come upon the scaffolding, would have been included within the protection of the OSHA regulations. It must also be conceded that the jury did, in fact, find appellee and appellant’s decedent equally negligent in causing the fatal fall. It is possible, however, that the court’s inadequate instruction regarding negligence had a misleading effect on the jury’s determination. Therefore, I am unable to accept appellee’s argument that the trial court’s omission was harmless.
I find no merit in appellant’s arguments (1) that the trial court erroneously disallowed rebuttal evidence and (2) erroneously instructed the jury concerning recoverable damages. With respect to the alleged inadequacy of the ver-*559diet, I find it unnecessary to express an opinion. It may be observed, however, that the trial judge, who heard the evidence and saw the witnesses, believed it to be a “compassionate verdict, rendered by a jury which was struck by the patent evidence of the decedent’s overwhelming contributory negligence but reluctant nevertheless to turn the widow away totally empty-handed.” The record does not belie this assessment.
I concur in the result.
MONTEMURO, J., joins in this Opinion.