Reed v. Malone's Mechanical, Inc., et al., No. 13-1026 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff 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.
Court Description: Civil case - Personal injury. Challenges to jury instructions rejected; district court did not abuse its discretion by commenting on one instruction; no error in admitting evidence regarding other contractors doing similar work on the premises and the safety measures they took while performing overhead work; reasonable minds could disagree as to whether the project consulting manager had a duty to plaintiff or defendant prior to or on the day of the accident, and the district court did not err in denying plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law that the project manager owed no duty.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.