Pike v. South Carolina Dep’t of Transp., 343 S.C. 224, 234, 540 S.E.2d 87, 92 (2000). In our opinion, respondents’ proffered evidence was relevant to, and admissible on, the first required element of negligence — the District’s duty of care to respondents. See Bloom v. Ravoira, supra; Rules 401, 402, SCRE. We agree with Chief Judge Hearn’s observation that the trial court was under “the mistaken belief that the District must have adopted these national protocols before such evidence was admissible.” Elledge, 341 S.C. at 478, 534 S.E.2d at 291. As recognized by the Court of Appeals, the general rule is that evidence of industry safety standards is relevant to establishing the standard of care in a negligence case. See, e.g., McComish v. DeSoi 42 N.J. 274, 200 A.2d 116, 120-21 (1964) (<HOLDING>); Walheim v. Kirkpatrick, 305 Pa.Super. 590,
holding costs of providing power during construction delay were direct damages because contract provision specified that owner would provide electricity to construction site holding that construction safety manuals and codes were properly admitted as objective standards of safe construction holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court to determine holding that numerical codes used to identify information and individuals as well as codes related to procedures concerning the use of law enforcement resources and databases  and case program and access codes were properly withheld under exemption 7e 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