## Facts

- Sheila Varnell was a retail customer in a Service Merchandise Company, Inc. showroom when she tripped over a merchandise display.
- Varnell claimed the display’s placement and configuration created an unreasonable risk of harm and that the store failed to use reasonable care to keep the premises safe for customers.
- Varnell filed a negligence action against Service Merchandise.
- At trial, Varnell presented extensive testimony, including testimony from witnesses offered to address safety and safety standards.
- Varnell also sought to introduce two categories of documents as evidence of the standard of care:
  - Service Merchandise’s internal safety manual, and
  - workplace-safety regulations issued under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA).
- Varnell was not an employee of Service Merchandise.
- The trial court excluded both the safety manual and the OSHA regulations after finding that any probative value was outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice and confusion.
- The jury found Service Merchandise was not negligent, and Varnell appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding OSHA regulations offered to show the standard of care in a negligence action brought by a non-employee customer.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding Service Merchandise’s internal safety manual on the ground that its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value.
3. Whether the evidentiary rulings and the record required reversal of the jury’s verdict finding no negligence.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit affirmed the judgment for Service Merchandise.
- The court held the trial court acted within its discretion in excluding OSHA regulations because they are aimed at employer-employee workplace safety and, in this customer case, could mislead jurors into treating them as the governing legal duty.
- The court held the trial court acted within its discretion in excluding the company safety manual because internal policies may set standards higher than tort law requires and could cause jurors to substitute company rules for the legal standard of reasonable care.
- The court noted that Varnell presented extensive testimony on safety issues, so the excluded materials were of limited added value and their exclusion did not warrant disturbing the verdict.
- Because the evidentiary rulings were not reversible error, the jury’s finding of no negligence was left in place.

## Legal Principles

- Trial courts have broad discretion over evidentiary rulings and may exclude otherwise relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by dangers such as unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, or misleading the jury.
- OSHA regulations are designed primarily to address workplace conditions affecting employers and employees; when offered in a negligence case by a non-employee, a court may find the regulations only weakly relevant and exclude them if they risk confusing the jury about the duty owed.
- A defendant’s internal safety manual may be excluded when admission would likely cause jurors to treat internal guidelines as the legal measure of reasonable care, especially where those guidelines may go beyond what the law requires.
- An evidentiary ruling warrants reversal only when there is an abuse of discretion and the complaining party shows the ruling likely affected the verdict.

## Conclusion

In Varnell v. Service Merchandise Co., a customer who tripped over a store display challenged the exclusion of OSHA regulations and the retailer’s safety manual offered as proof of the standard of care. The Louisiana Third Circuit affirmed, holding the trial court could exclude both materials because of their limited value in a non-employee premises case and the risk that jurors would treat workplace rules or internal policies as the controlling legal duty, and it therefore upheld the jury’s defense verdict.


Varnell v. Service Merchandise Co., 613 So. 2d 1042 (1993)