affirmed the summary judgment ruling, stating that the plaintiff had failed to provide any “case law that mandates that Dominion was required to provide handrails or a warning sign” or evidence to establish that Dominion’s premises were not reasonably safe. Id. at (¶ 12). ¶ 11. .Although the fact pattern is similar, we find Ball to be distinguishable from the case at. bar. Like the plaintiff in Ball, the Wilkinses did not provide case law establishing that a business must comply with federal regulations and various safety standards. However, the. Wilkinses did provide case law that states that safety standards and regulations are admissible as a measure to show reasonably care consistent with industry standards. Accur-Fab & Constr., Inc. v. Ladner, 778 So.2d 766, 771 (¶ 21) (Miss.2001) (<HOLDING>) and Jones v. Panola County, 725 So.2d 774
holding osha regulations admissible as evidence of negligence under fela holding that safety standards regarding the safe design and use of trampolines including astm standards were admissible on the issue of the defendants negligence even though the defendants were unaware of the standards holding that occupational health and safety administration osha standards were admissible holding that an experts testimony that a victims symptoms were consistent with administration of a date rape drug were admissible holding osha violations may be used as evidence of negligence per se under fela