With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". emphasizes that it did not contest the admission of an OSHA violation as evidence of negligence in Ries and asks the Court to adopt the reasoning of Judge Nygaard’s concurring opinion, which argued violations of OSHA should not be introduced even as evidence of negligence under FELA. D.I. 32 at 6 n. 1; D.I. 35 at 5 n. 2. The Court will not disregard controlling ease law from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The majority opinion in Ries clearly permits the use of OSHA violations as evidence of negligence under FELA. 960 F.2d at 1162. Further, the great weight of authority in other circuits suggests OSHA violations are admissible as evidence of negligence under FELA. See, e.g., Manes v. Metro-North Commuter R.R., 801 F.Supp. 954, 964-65 (D.Conn.1992), aff'd, 990 F.2d 622 (2d Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); Albrecht v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 808

A: holding osha regulations admissible as evidence of negligence under fela
B: holding a violation of 49 cfr  21835 constitutes a fela negligence per se claim
C: holding that occupational health and safety administration osha standards were admissible
D: holding that where train speed and locomotive design complied with federal regulations railroad employees fela claims were preempted by the frsa since congress has established a policy of national uniformity of laws rules regulations orders and standards
A.