Legal Opinion
Balma v. Tidewater Oil Company
Supreme Court of Delaware
Decided November 9, 1965No. 48, 1965PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HERRMANN, Justice.
The question on this appeal is whether the Delaware Scaffolding Statute, 16 Del. C. Sec. 7701(a), * is applicable in this case.
The facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, are these:
The plaintiff, Pete Raima, was an employee of Catalytic Constmction Company (hereinafter “Catalytic”) which had a contract with the defendant Tidewater Oil Company (hereinafter “Tidewater”) for repair and maintenance work at the latter’s plant. The contract provided that Tidewater “may furnish for work to be performed by Catalytic hereunder all equipment, apparatus, * * *…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Quigley v. . ThatcherNew York Court of Appeals · 1912
- Rash v. AllenSuperior Court of Delaware · 1910
- Sweeney v. Spring Products Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1939
- Sweeney v. Spring Prod., Schulte Real Est. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1940
- Beck v. Lund's Fisheries, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1960
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Giuricich v. Emtrol Corp.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1982
- Marker v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1982
- A & P STORES v. HanniganSupreme Court of Delaware · 1976
- Simmons v. Delaware State HospitalSupreme Court of Delaware · 1995
- Bon Ayre Land, LLC v. Bon Ayre Community AssociationSupreme Court of Delaware · 2016
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.