Reed v. Malone's Mechanical, Inc., et al., No. 13-1026 (8th Cir. 2014)Annotate this Case
Plaintiff filed suit against Malone and others after he was injured by a pipe saddle. The jury returned a verdict for Malone and plaintiff appealed, raising numerous issues on appeal. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give plaintiff's proffered instruction; the district court did not abuse its discretion by instructing the jury regarding OSHA regulations; the court rejected plaintiff's claim that the district court's comment regarding Instruction 15 was improper and prejudiced him such that he should receive a new trial; the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing testimony regarding what procedures contractors other than Malone were using when working overhead on the same project; and the district court did not err in failing to grant plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law as to Malone's third-party claim against Gilbert Project Services. The district court did not err in denying plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law because reasonable minds could disagree as to whether Gilbert had a duty to plaintiff or Malone prior to or on the day of the accident. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.