Pelletier v. Main Street Textiles, No. 05-2797 affirms the judgment in what is essentially a state law torts suit. The plaintiff argues that the District Court abused its discretion in excluding two OSHA regulations regarding construction work, and an expert that would have testified as to the standards of care in construction work.
The District Court found that the plaintiff had not laid an “adequate foundation” (a term which seems to vary in definition) to admit 29 C.F.R. § 1926.20(b)(2) and (3). Without explain what in the world an “adequate foundation” means, the court notes that the plaintiff only produced an witness who said that he knew it was a “construction site” and he wasn’t familiar with those regulations, and whatever the case, the knowledge that the defendant was issued OSHA citations that were not-construction-specific didn’t help matters.
Strangely enough the court also didn’t admit the testimony of an expert who, it seems, would have testified as to why the regulations were relevant. The First affirms and says this guy was really going to testify on the law, which is not okay. But, if he testified on what people “thought” the law was – or industry custom – it would have been okay. This is a fairly rich area of law, since the line between “custom” and “law” is very thin.
Whatever the case, all these errors would have not prejudiced the plaintiffs substantial rights, the First finds.
Comments