at issue in Perry concerned whether or not the employer had the opportunity to find and correct a grease spill on a stairway. At issue in this case, however, is an alleged dangerous condition in regard to an improperly secured manhole cover. The cause of this condition is not clear from the pleadings; however, it is likely that the condition existed prior to and at the time that the plaintiff boarded the ABS 1447 B. As mentioned previously, an employer has a duty to inspect third party ships to which it sends its employee to work upon. If, by a reasonable inspection, Yazoo River could have discovered the condition of the unsecured manhole cover, then the employer can be charged with notice of that condition. See Ribitzki v. Canmar Reading & Bates, 111 F.3d 658, 664 (9th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). The Court will, therefore, conduct an
holding that when a possessor knows that a dangerous condition frequently reoccurs plaintiffs had a right to go to the jury on the issue of defendants negligence even where plaintiffs could not show how long the condition remained on the stairs holding that contractor owed general negligence duty to thirdparty by dangerous condition contractor created on road holding that a plaintiff who had asserted no claim against a thirdparty defendant lacked standing to complain of the courts action with regard to the thirdparty defendant holding that a jury issue existed with regard to an alleged dangerous condition concerning an open hatch on a thirdparty vessel holding that in an action brought by alleged wife for permanent alimony suit money attorneys fees and restraining order an issue of fact existed concerning whether a commonlaw marriage existed thus precluding summary judgment