Antilles School, Inc. v. Lembach, 64 V.I. 400

Lembach sued Antilles School in the Virgin Islands Superior Court for negligence and premises liability after a nighttime fall on a bridge over a nine-foot gulley during a January 28, 2012 event.
Lembach, legally blind from cataracts, tripped exiting a taxi and walking toward the bridge, suffering injuries requiring medical evacuation.
Antilles moved to preclude expert Rosie Mackay; her opinion connected a 42-inch barrier to a 48-inch drop, citing multiple safety codes not codified in Virgin Islands law.
The Superior Court allowed Mackay to testify about safety standards without tying them to specific code sections and proposed separate negligence/premises liability jury instructions, later revised to a single liability question.
The jury found Antilles negligent, awarding medical expenses and substantial pain and suffering, but the verdict form allocated 80% fault to Antilles and 20% to Lembach; Lembach reduced damages by 20% per stipulation.
Antilles moved for JML, new trial, and remittitur; the Superior Court denied these, and Antilles appealed, challenging duplicative instructions, expert testimony, and remittitur, among other issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the evidence sufficient for negligence?	Lembach shows breach and causation evidence via Mackay's 42-inch barrier standard.	Antilles argues no breach or causation; the bridge complied with codes and no foreseeability.	Evidence supports negligence.
Did duplicative jury instructions prejudice Antilles?	Duplication was harmless; premises and negligence theories overlap.	Duplicative instructions could confuse the jury and misstate the theory of liability.	Harmless error; affirmed.
Was Mackay properly admitted as an expert under Daubert/Frye?	Daubert applies; Mackay’s methodology is reliable via training and codes.	Daubert not properly applied; rely on Frye/general acceptance.	Daubert governs; error in precluding code-based testimony favored neither side; ultimately harmless.
Should remittitur be recognized in the Virgin Islands?	Remittitur would correct an excessive award and promote judicial economy.	Remittitur undermines jury findings and violates Seventh Amendment rights to a jury trial.	Remittitur declined; damages affirmed with 20% comparative reduction.
Did the trial court err in limiting expert testimony about specific codes?	Industry standards and codes inform the standard of care for a premises hazard.	Codes not adopted locally cannot define Virgin Islands standard of care.	Virgin Islands court adopts Daubert; expert testimony based on codes admissible when relevant to standard of care, not solely as statute.

Machado v. Yacht Haven U.S.V.I., LLC, 61 V.I. 373 (V.I. 2014) (elements of negligence; foreseeability in premises liability)
Connor v. Gov’t of the VI, 60 V.I. 597 (V.I. 2014) (borrowed rules and procedural law; Banks analysis framework)
White v. Spenceley Realty, LLC, 53 V.I. 666 (V.I. 2010) (adoption of Restatement §281 (premises liability context))
Sealey-Christian v. Sunny Isle Shopping Ctr., Inc., 52 V.I. 410 (V.I. 2009) (adoption of Restatement §343; invitee/licensee distinctions in VI law)
Banks v. Int’l Rental & Leasing Corp., 55 V.I. 967 (V.I. 2011) (Banks test for remittitur; Banks factors framework)