from the OSHA inspection after this incident were for repeat offenses, the repeat offense that appears pertinent to this ease was the failure to mark a container of hazardous chemicals so as to identify the chemical. The prior citation for such an offense is not in the record, and we are unable to determine whether the “repeat” aspect of the citation pertains only to the type of citation or to the particular location of the offending container. In any event, our supreme court has not yet held that OSHA citations are evidence that compels the conclusion that a coemployee was substantially certain that injury or death would occur. In fact, in two cases involving OSHA citations, the court has held that such citations would not support that finding. See Ex parte Martin, 733 So.2d at 396 (<HOLDING>), and Harris v. Simmons, 585 So.2d 906, 908
holding that witnesss testimony was sufficient to support the trial courts finding that defendant committed battery that resulted in bodily injury holding postaccident citation not sufficient to support finding that coemployee was substantially certain that injury or death would occur holding that preaccident citation would not support a finding that coemployees were substantially certain that injury or death would occur holding evidence sufficient to support trial courts finding in aggravation that the offense was planned holding governments position substantially justified where sufficient support existed in precedent