to show how either instruction supports its contention that Plaintiff submitted a claim for negligence per se. To the extent that Company argues Plaintiff cannot use regulatory requirements to establish the standard of care for general negligence or to assist the jury in determining whether a product is defective under a products liability claim, Company is incorrect. Missouri courts do not prohibit plaintiffs from defining the standard of care in terms of what a statute or regulation requires. See Giddens v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 29 S.W.3d 813, 821 (Mo. banc 2000) (stating that Occupational Safety and Health Act regulations offered as evidence of the standard of care owed by a party are competent evidence relevant to the question of negligence); Vintila, 52 S.W.3d at 37 (<HOLDING>). In the context of products liability, Company
recognizing contribution in the appropriate case holding that dismissal without prejudice was appropriate where a plaintiff failed to name each of the persons alleged to have violated the appropriate standard of care recognizing that missouri courts have often held that regulations may establish the appropriate standard of care in a negligence case holding that although compliance with administrative safety regulations did not establish due care it was evidence of due care holding that a manufacturers insert in and of itself may not establish the relevant standard of care in a medical negligence action but may be considered by the fact finder along with expert testimony to define the standard of care