## Facts

- Norwilton Murray, an experienced instrument fitter employed by Litwin Corporation, was installing an electrical control panel at an oil refinery in the Virgin Islands.
- Beloit Power Systems, Inc. manufactured the panel to Litwin’s specifications; Litwin’s engineer approved the unit at Beloit’s factory.
- The panel was intentionally left open at the bottom so conduits could be attached from below; Beloit attached two iron cross-members across the bottom to stabilize the unit during shipping.
- The panel (about 1.5 tons) was hoisted onto a platform roughly ten feet above a concrete floor; the mounting holes did not align.
- Murray used a crowbar to rock the unit into alignment and, while leaning into the open bottom space to bolt it down, put weight on a cross-member.
- The cross-member failed and Murray fell about ten feet, sustaining severe spinal injuries.
- Evidence showed the cross-member was only tack-welded rather than permanently welded.
- Murray suffered permanent and catastrophic harm, including multiple surgeries, nerve damage causing incontinence and sexual dysfunction, poor prognosis, possible future wheelchair confinement, and diminished life expectancy; he did not return to work.
- Murray sued the manufacturer under strict products liability (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A) and negligence, alleging a defective condition due to inadequate welding; the manufacturer argued Murray’s installation method was unsafe and constituted fault.

## Issues

1. Whether the Virgin Islands comparative negligence statute applies to strict products liability claims under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, and if so, whether damages may be reduced by the plaintiff’s share of fault.
2. Whether the jury’s $2,000,000 verdict (before reduction) was excessive or improperly influenced by plaintiff’s counsel suggesting a specific dollar amount in closing argument.

## Decision

- The court held the Virgin Islands comparative negligence statute applies to § 402A strict products liability claims as well as negligence claims.
- The court upheld reducing Murray’s recovery by the percentage of fault the jury attributed to him (5%).
- The court rejected challenges to the verdict as excessive and found no reversible error based on counsel’s suggested dollar figure, noting the trial court’s discretion and the lack of a timely objection.
- The judgment for Murray, reflecting a 5% reduction from the $2,000,000 award, was affirmed; the manufacturer’s appeal and Murray’s cross-appeal were denied.

## Legal Principles

- A comparative negligence statute may be applied in strict products liability actions under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A to reduce damages in proportion to the plaintiff’s causal contribution to the injury.
- Strict products liability’s focus on product defect does not bar comparison of causal fault between a defective condition and a plaintiff’s negligent conduct contributing to the accident.
- In jurisdictions applying comparative fault, plaintiff misconduct that contributes to harm generally operates as a partial reduction of damages rather than an automatic bar, absent a controlling rule to the contrary.
- A large personal-injury verdict will be upheld when supported by evidence of severe, permanent injury and resulting losses, and absent a showing that the award was irrational or the product of reversible trial error.
- Alleged prejudice from closing argument is less likely to warrant reversal where the trial court acted within its discretion and the complaining party failed to object contemporaneously.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit affirmed a products-liability and negligence judgment for a catastrophically injured installer, holding that comparative negligence principles may reduce recovery in § 402A actions and upholding the jury’s $2,000,000 award as supported by the evidence and free of reversible error.


Murray v. Fairbanks Morse, 610 F.2d 149 (3d Cir. 1979)