Defense Verdict For Contractor At Arkansas Chicken Plant Affirmed By Eighth Circuit

While renovating an Arkansas chicken plant, the worker for a mechanical and plumbing contractor accidentally dropped a pipe saddle on the employee of a different contractor while performing overhead work on the plant’s thermal piping used to carry hot cooking oil to cooking equipment.  Because the location of an oven prevented a scissor lift from being situated directly beneath the pipe saddle that was dropped, the mechanical and plumbing contractor was working outside the lift platform and guardrails of the scissor lift, which allowed the pipe saddle to fall down to the plant’s floor.  The injured worker filed suit claiming that the employee who dropped the pipe saddle acted negligently in handling the tool and failing to warn the workers working below, and that any negligence was imputed to the mechanical and plumbing contractor.  Following a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict for the mechanical and plumbing contractor.

On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the verdict and rejected the injured worker’s points of error, including that the district court 1) inadequately instructed the jury; 2) improperly commented on a jury instruction; 3) permitted evidence of prior bad acts; and 4) denied a motion for judgment as a matter of law.  The worker contended that the district judge gave the jury an instruction based on the wrong OSHA regulation when instructing the jury that a violation of a statute or regulation could be considered evidence of negligence.  Specifically, the worker wanted the instruction to cover the OSHA regulation that specifically applies to scaffolds as opposed to the general falling object regulation that the court used.  The Eighth Circuit agreed with the trial court that because there was no evidence that anything fell out of the scissor lift, and that the object that fell was located outside the scissor lift, the judge’s instruction was appropriate.  The court also rejected the worker’s other arguments on appeal, including disagreeing that the judge’s comment that the jury would first need to determine if the OSHA regulation actually applied to the facts at issue before it could determine whether the contractor had breached a duty under the regulation was in error.