 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
JUAREZ v. AARDEMA6/7/1996
n view of the appellants' expert's testimony that it did not matter how or why Juarez became trapped in the gate; what mattered was that compliance with OSHA would have absolutely prevented the accident.
The record does not support the jury's verdict and the district court should therefore have granted a new trial pursuant to I.R.C.P. 59(a)(6); additionally, the district court failed to state its reasons for denying the new trial motion. For these reasons we vacate that portion of the district court's order and remand for a new trial.
Because we remand the case for a new trial, we need not address the appellants' argument that the district court erred in not ruling on the appellants' objection to the Dairy's misstatement of the appellants' burden of proof during closing arguments.
IV.
CONCLUSION
We hold that the district court correctly denied appellants' motion for judgment n.o.v. pursuant to I.R.C.P. 50(b). There was enough evidence to justify submitting to the jury the question of whether the Dairy's breach of OSHA regulations was the proximate cause of Juarez's death.
We further hold, however, that the district court abused its descretion in denying appellants' motion for a new trial pursuant to I.R.C.P. 59(a)(6). The finding of no negligence or causation by the Dairy was contrary to the great weight of the evidence.
Accordingly, we affirm that part of the district court's order denying appellants' motion for judgment n.o.v., and vacate the part of the order denying their motion for a new trial. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
No attorney fees on appeal. Costs on appeal to appellants.
JOHNSON, J., and TRANSTRUM, J. Pro Tem., concur.
I am compelled to dissent from the Court's opinion.
Under section I of the Court's opinion, FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND, it correctly relates the evidence that was before the Court: "Before the police arrived, Haag noticed that Juarez had finished greasing all of the gates." The evidence was uncontroverted that Juarez had in the words of Haag "finished greasing all of the gates." There was, therefore, no reason for an electrical lockout procedure pursuant to the Occupational Safety & Health Act of 1970 (OSHA) regulations. NO ONE WAS WORKING ON THE GATES. THE WORK HAD BEEN COMPLETED.
Clearly the jury could discern that there was no factual predicate for Preston's opinion that Juarez was killed while working on the gates.
SCHROEDER, J., concurs in dissent.
McDEVITT, Chief Justice, dissenting.
|