## Facts

- DuPont owned and operated a plant in Old Hickory, Tennessee and hired Daniel Construction Company as an independent contractor to dismantle and remove hydraulic bailers spanning multiple floor levels.
- The bailer pit was below ground level and was accessed by a straight, permanently affixed ladder mounted to a wall.
- Richard J. Teal, a Daniel Construction employee, fell about seventeen feet from the ladder into the pit and was injured.
- Teal and his wife sued DuPont for negligence under Tennessee law, including failure to warn of dangers, failure to protect against hazards, and failure to provide safe equipment and safety devices.
- Teal also alleged negligence per se based on asserted OSHA violations governing fixed ladders, including a minimum clearance requirement between the ladder and the wall.
- After a five-day jury trial in federal district court, the jury returned a defense verdict for DuPont.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court’s jury instructions on a landowner’s duty to an independent contractor’s employees (invitees) were erroneous or misleading and, if so, whether the error required reversal.
2. Whether, under Tennessee law, the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on negligence per se based on alleged OSHA ladder regulation violations affecting an independent contractor’s employee.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment insofar as it rejected challenges to the premises-liability instruction, concluding any ambiguity in the charge was harmless when read as a whole.
- The Sixth Circuit reversed on the negligence per se instructional issue, holding the refusal to give an OSHA-based negligence per se instruction was improper and prejudicial.
- The case was remanded for a new trial limited to the negligence per se theory based on the alleged OSHA ladder-regulation violation(s).

## Legal Principles

- Under Tennessee negligence-per-se doctrine, a violation of a statute or regulation may establish breach of duty when (1) the plaintiff is within the class the enactment was intended to protect and (2) the injury is the type the enactment was designed to prevent.
- OSHA safety regulations can supply the standard for a negligence per se instruction in a Tennessee tort action when those requirements are specific and aimed at preventing the type of workplace injury suffered.
- An employee of an independent contractor working on the premises may fall within the class of persons protected by OSHA safety regulations for purposes of a negligence per se instruction.
- A jury-instruction error warrants reversal only if it is prejudicial; an ambiguous instruction may be harmless if the overall charge correctly conveys the applicable duty.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that, although the landowner-duty instruction was at most ambiguously worded and not reversible, the district court’s refusal to let the jury consider negligence per se grounded in OSHA ladder standards was prejudicial; it therefore ordered a new trial confined to that negligence per se issue.


Teal v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 728 F.2d 799 (6th Cir. 1984)