Pratico v. Portland Terminal Co‪.‬

This appeal raises some novel questions of law concerning the interaction of safety regulations promulgated under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OSHA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 651 et seq. (1982), and the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. §§ 51 et seq. (1982). Plaintiff-appellant, Michael Pratico, brought suit against his employer, Portland Terminal Company, under FELA for damages suffered when he was injured in a railroad yard accident. He claimed below that his injury was caused by the railroads use of equipment in violation of OSHA regulations and that this constituted negligence per se. He also claimed that under FELA a violation by the employer of a safety statute which leads to an injury eliminates the employers defense of contributory negligence. 45 U.S.C. § 53. The district court found that there was no relevant OSHA regulation, struck previously admitted testimony concerning the regulation from the record, and refused to give plaintiffs requested jury instruction on negligence and contributory negligence. The court further stated that, even if there had been an OSHA violation, it would have found the requested jury instruction an incorrect statement of the law. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $227,000, but found him to have been 80% contributorily negligent; his award was, therefore, reduced to $45,000. Appellant claims that both of the courts rulings were in error and that he is entitled to the full amount of the damages awarded, with prejudgment interest, or, at the very least, a new trial.