Reference no: EM133683799

Question

Bernie was a citizen of Texas. He was an employee of Skyscraper Company ("SC"), a Georgia corporation. Bernie was killed when some scaffolding collapsed on a SC project in Georgia. The scaffolding had been provided by a subcontractor for the job, Megatower (a U.S. corporation). Bernie's wife, Bridget, as the executor of his estate, sued SC in an appropriate U.S. District Court in Georgia. She claimed that SC had been negligent in failing to inspect the defective scaffolding supplied by Megatower. Georgia law provided that a general contractor is presumed to have not inspected materials supplied by a subcontractor. This presumption is rebuttable. At the time of his death, Bernie owed SC $7,000 in advanced wages. The amount claimed by Bridget is $1 million. At the trial, SC introduced evidence showing that Bernie had been warned by his supervisor not to work near the scaffolding until it had been thoroughly checked because it looked unsafe. Bernie disregarded the supervisor's instruction. Bridget then produced a witness who testified that Bernie had always objected to working close to scaffolding. If no further evidence was introduced by either side, should SC motion for judgment as a matter of law be granted? Explain why or why not.