Torts Keyed to Henderson
Murray v. Fairbanks Morse
Norwilton Murray (Plaintiff) was employed by Litwin Corporation, an installer of equipment. Plaintiff and a co-worker were installing an electrical control panel built by Beloit Power Systems, Inc. (Defendant), a subsidiary of Fairbanks Morse (Defendant), at an oil refinery in the Virgin Islands. Defendant 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, Defendant 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. Plaintiff’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 Plaintiff used a crowbar to rock the unit into place. When Plaintiff put his weight on one of the iron cross-members to complete the task, the iron cross-member gave way and Plaintiff fell about 10 feet onto the concrete floor incurring serious injuries. Plaintiff brought a products liability action against Defendant 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 Defendant liable and Plaintiff negligent that it was to reduce Plaintiff’s award by the percentage attributable to him. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff and assessed the sum of $2 million against Defendant. The jury then found that Plaintiff had been 5 percent negligent in his conduct. The trial judge reduced the $2 million award accordingly. After Defendant’s motion for a new trial was denied it appealed. Plaintiff 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.
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
Topic:Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
Parties:Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
Procedural Posture & History:Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.:A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises:Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
Brief Facts:A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
Rule of Law:Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
Facts:What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case.
Issue(s):Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
Holding:Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
Concurring / Dissenting Opinions:Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
Reasoning and Analysis:Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.