Chelcher v. Spider Staging Corp.
United States District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands
892 F. Supp. 710 (1995)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Chelcher (plaintiff), an employee of Industrial Maintenance Corporation, sustained permanently disabling damage to his lower back when he sandblasted the top of a spherical propane tank for a prolonged period of time atop a scaffold that was positioned at an awkward angle. The tank was owned by Hess Oil Virgin Islands. On the day of the incident, Chelcher climbed onto a movable, cage-like scaffold, or “spider,” manufactured by Spider Staging Corporation (Spider) (defendant) to perform the sandblasting. Chelcher had worked on a number of similar scaffolds during his career. However, the particular spider scaffold had been mis-rigged, causing the floor platform of the spider to tilt away from the tank. Even though Chelcher was aware of the mis-rigging, he nonetheless boarded the cage and performed sandblasting duties on the titled platform for approximately five hours. Chelcher filed suit against Spider, alleging a number of claims, including negligent failure to warn. Chelcher claimed that a pictogram depicting a man falling could easily have been placed on the spider scaffold to warn those ascending the structure. Each party filed a motion for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Moore, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.