United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
610 F.2d 149 (1979)
Norwilton Murray (plaintiff) was employed by Litwin Corporation, an installer of equipment. Murray and a co-worker were installing an electrical control panel built by Beloit Power Systems, Inc. (Beloit) (defendant), a subsidiary of Fairbanks Morse (defendant), at an oil refinery in the Virgin Islands. Beloit built the control panel to Litwin’s specifications and a Litwin engineer approved the product before it was shipped. In order to protect the unit, Beloit had attached two iron cross-members to the open bottom of the unit to stabilize it during shipping. Litwin intended to install the control panel on a platform over an open space about 10 feet above the concrete floor of the refinery. Murray’s task was to align the holes in the base of the control panel with the holes in the platform and secure the unit with mounting bolts. However, the holes were not perfectly aligned and Murray used a crowbar to rock the unit into place. When Murray put his weight on one of the iron cross-members to complete the task, the iron cross-member gave way and Murray fell about 10 feet onto the concrete floor incurring serious injuries. Murray brought a products liability action against Beloit alleging alternative theories of strict liability and common law negligence. The district court held that the Virgin Islands’ comparative negligence statute applied and instructed the jury that if they found Beloit liable and Murray negligent that it was to reduce Murray’s award by the percentage attributable to him. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Murray and assessed the sum of $2 million against Beloit. The jury then found that Murray had been 5 percent negligent in his conduct. The trial judge reduced the $2 million award accordingly. After Beloit’s motion for a new trial was denied it appealed. Murray cross-appealed, arguing that his award should not have been reduced by 5 percent. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had appellate jurisdiction over the case.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Rosenn, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 220,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.