Aponte-Bermudez v. Colon, 944 F.3d 963

On December 30, 2012, a vehicle driven by Gabriel Medina struck a parked car, which was propelled into an open terrace at a building owned by Eligio Colón, injuring Yeitza Aponte-Bermúdez.
Aponte sued Medina, Colón (later substituted by his heirs), and others; she settled with all defendants except Colón’s heirs and insurer and proceeded to trial against them.
At trial Aponte presented two expert witnesses (an engineer/project manager, Carlos Vera-Muñoz, and an accident-reconstruction/mechanical engineer, Ivan Baigés-Valentín) who opined the terrace was too close to the road, was built within a right-of-way, lacked permits, and could not resist vehicular impact.
The district court granted judgment as a matter of law for the defendants after Aponte’s case-in-chief, concluding she failed to prove the applicable standard of care, breach, or foreseeability under Puerto Rico law.
The court found Aponte’s experts failed to identify customary industry standards, specific statutes, regulations, or other authorities establishing the required standard of care for roadside/terrace design or construction.
The court also clarified that Planning Regulation #4 does not itself create rights-of-way or independently prohibit roadside construction; the record lacked a legal basis showing the terrace’s construction was illegal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether expert testimony is required to prove the standard of care for negligent design under Puerto Rico law	Vázquez-Filippetti governs but Aponte contends her experts established the standard	Expert proof required and Aponte’s experts did not establish the requisite standard	Expert testimony is ordinarily required; Aponte’s proof was insufficient
Whether Aponte’s experts identified the customary standard of care for roadside/terrace design	Vera and Baigés testified the terrace was too close to road, lacked permits, and was not impact-resistant	Experts failed to cite industry standards, statutes, or regulations showing customary practice	Experts did not point to customary/industry standards; proof inadequate
Whether the terrace was illegally constructed within a government right-of-way	Vera testified construction occurred inside the right-of-way and without permits	No statute or record evidence established a right-of-way or prohibition; Planning Regulation #4 does not create rights-of-way	Record did not show a legal prohibition; testimony did not prove illegality
Whether Aponte proved breach and foreseeability linking defendant conduct to her injuries	The terrace’s placement and lack of crash-resistance made impact and injuries foreseeable	Without an established standard of care, breach and foreseeability are unproven	Court held Aponte failed to prove breach or foreseeability; JMOL for defendants affirmed

Vázquez-Filippetti v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, 504 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 2007) (under Puerto Rico law, negligent-design claims ordinarily require expert proof of the applicable standard of care)
Rodríguez-Tirado v. Speedy Bail Bonds, 891 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2018) (diversity case analysis governed by Puerto Rico substantive law)

Affirmed.