the Court will not permit plaintiff to use OSHA violations to establish negligence per se under FELA. With respect to plaintiffs second assertion, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has held the violation of an OSHA regulation is admissible as evidence of a railroad’s negligence under FELA. Id. at 1165. In Ries, the majority observed that “[e]vidence of an OSHA violation, in and of itself,' does not ‘affect’ liability; it is the inferences that the trier of fact draws from the evidence that ‘affect’ liability.” Id. at 1162 n. 5. In its briefs, however, Amtra 329, 332 (4th Cir.1987) (no reversible error where district court instructed jury that OSHA violations constituted evi dence of negligence under FELA). Cf. Pratico v. Portland Terminal Co., 783 F.2d 255, 264-67 (1st Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, plaintiff may introduce
holding a violation of 49 cfr  21835 constitutes a fela negligence per se claim holding that violation of city ordinance does not constitute negligence per se holding violation of the rules of professional conduct does not create a legal duty on the part of the lawyer nor constitute negligence per se although it may be used as some evidence of negligence holding osha violations may be used as evidence of negligence per se under fela holding osha regulations admissible as evidence of negligence under fela