With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to the special verdict form, as instructed, the jury found that the total amount of damages to be awarded, “without any deduction for any [contributory] negligence” on the part of Mr. Payne, was $8.6 million. Because the jury found the Defendant to be negligent per se, a finding of liability that was not rejected by Judge Wimberly, FELA does not allow for the reduction or apportionment of damages based on contributory negligence. 45 U.S.C. § 53; see Lindsay, 233 U.S. at 49-50, 34 S.Ct. 581. In our view, Judge Wimberly erred by providing additional instructions and inviting the jury to reconsider its initial award, which was based upon a substantially accurate statement of the law. Cfi Shepard v. Grand Trunk W. R.R., No. 92711, 2010 WL 1712316, at *13-14 (Ohio Ct.App. Apr. 29, 2010) (<HOLDING>). Because we have determined that it was error

A: holding negligence per se not applicable to violation of railroad commission regulation
B: holding osha violations may be used as evidence of negligence per se under fela
C: holding that in a fela case where the jury found negligence per se the defendant railroad could not challenge the validity of the verdict through postverdict discussions indicating that the jury believed the total award would be reduced by the plaintiffs contributory negligence
D: holding question of contributory negligence was harmless because once jury found defendant did not proximately cause the occurrence in question defendant was exonerated of liability such that neither an affirmative nor a negative answer to plaintiffs negligence could have altered the verdict
C.