Michael Reed v. Malone's Mechanical, Inc., 765 F.3d 900

Simmons Foods renovated its Van Buren chicken plant in 2006; Malone performed overhead piping work and a pipe saddle fell from a scissor lift injuring Reed.
Reed sued Malone, Jacobs, and Simmons in federal court; Simmons was dismissed on summary judgment and Reed later dismissed his suit without prejudice.
Reed refiled against Malone and Jacobs alleging negligent securing of the pipe saddle and failure to warn; Malone and Jacobs claimed Gilbert Project Services as project manager bore responsibility and sought contribution from Gilbert.
Gilbert moved to dismiss; district court allowed Malone to pursue contribution from Gilbert under Arkansas Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors, ruling Gilbert could share liability if found liable, though Gilbert did not attend trial.
Trial occurred with pretrial in limine excluding Simmons’ negligence; Reed sought various jury instructions and OSHA-related evidence; a six-question verdict found Malone liable and did not allocate fault to Reed or Gilbert.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the court abuse its discretion by not giving Simmons instruction?	Reed asserts Simmons’ negligence should be decided by jurors.	No evidence supported Simmons' negligence; remonstration would confuse the jury.	No abuse; instruction not necessary.
Was Instruction 15 proper regarding OSHA regulations as evidence of negligence?	Regulation 1926.451(h)(2) scaffold rule should have been used; more protective.	General fall-protection regulation 1926.501 with 404(b) style instruction was appropriate.	District court did not abuse discretion; instruction properly framed.
Did the court’s comment on Instruction 15 prejudice Reed?	Court’s remarks biased jury against OSHA instruction.	Comment was appropriate assistance to jury given evidence; not prejudicial.	No reversible prejudice; no new trial warranted.
Was evidence about other contractors’ safety practices admissible under Rule 404(b)?	Other contractors’ practices show Gilbert’s knowledge and breach of safety duties.	Evidence admissible for permissible purposes; not unfairly prejudicial.	No abuse of discretion in admitting 404(b) evidence.
Was judgment as a matter of law properly denied regarding Gilbert’s duty and timing?	Gilbert’s contract expired before the injury; no duty.	Evidence showed Gilbert continued services; duty possible.	Reasonable minds could differ; jury decision not clearly erroneous; denial affirmed.

Craig Outdoor Adver., Inc. v. Viacom Outdoor, Inc., 528 F.3d 1001 (8th Cir. 2008) (absent contrary evidence, jury follows given instructions)
Weitz Co. v. MacKenzie House, LLC, 665 F.3d 970 (8th Cir. 2012) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
Dupont v. Fred’s Stores of Tenn., Inc., 652 F.3d 878 (8th Cir. 2011) (broad discretion in jury instructions)
McCoy v. Augusta Fiberglass Coatings, Inc., 593 F.3d 737 (8th Cir. 2010) (jury instructions need not be perfect)
Brown v. Sandals Resorts, Int’l, 284 F.3d 949 (8th Cir. 2002) (jury instruction adequacy standard)
Warren v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 531 F.3d 693 (8th Cir. 2008) (courts may comment on evidence to aid jury)
Gant v. United States, 506 F.2d 518 (8th Cir. 1974) (judge may comment on evidence within limits)
Dunn v. Brimer, 537 S.W.2d 164 (Ark. 1976) (statutory evidence as negligence indicator)
Solis v. Summit Contractors, Inc., 558 F.3d 815 (8th Cir. 2009) (OSHA multi-employer policy—no private duties created)
Chew v. Am. Greetings Corp., 754 F.3d 632 (8th Cir. 2014) (OSHA violations may be evidence but not private duty)
Sensible additional reference, N/A (N/A) (placeholder for additional cited authorities)