With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.” (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); Colonna v. Wheeling & Lake Erie Ry. Co., 129 F.3d 1263, 1997 WL 705092, at *2 (6th Cir. Nov. 5, 1997) (recognizing that a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 213.241(a) or (b) could “constitute negligence per se under FELA”); see also, e.g., Eckert v. Aliquippa & Southern R.R. Co., 828 F.2d 183, 186 (3d Cir.1987) (permitting a plaintiff to submit evidence of a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 213.135(g) to establish a FELA negligence claim). Third, and finally, lower court case law in this circuit also supports the conclusion that evidence of a violation of a FRSA regulation can establish a FELA negligence claim. See, e.g., Goines v. CSX Transp., Inc., No. 09-cv-672, at 11 (S.D.Ohio Apr. 12, 2011) (<HOLDING>); Waggoner v. Ohio Cent. R.R., Inc., No.

A: holding osha violations may be used as evidence of negligence per se under fela
B: holding a violation of 49 cfr  21835 constitutes a fela negligence per se claim
C: holding that violation of city ordinance does not constitute negligence per se
D: holding negligence per se not applicable to violation of railroad commission regulation
B.