Burgos-Yantín v. Municipality of Juana Díaz
751 F. Supp. 2d 345
| D.P.R. | 2010Background
- This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action and Puerto Rico Article 1802 tort claim arising from alleged excessive police force resulting in Miguel Ángel Burgos's death.
- The jury dismissed the § 1983 claims but returned a verdict in favor of Carmen Burgos-Yantin on the supplemental negligence claim.
- Co-defendants Torres-Santiago and Conde-González moved for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) on July 29, 2010; the motion was denied on September 10, 2010.
- Carmen Burgos-Yantin, as a relative of the decedent, sought damages despite the decedent not having suffered an injury recoverable under the tort claim at issue.
- The co-defendants filed a motion for reconsideration on October 8, 2010 asserting manifest error of law and misapplication of Landol-Rivera.
- The court denied the motion for reconsideration, reaffirming the original ruling and the jury verdict under Puerto Rico law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Landol-Rivera applicability and distinction | Burgos-Yantin argues Landol-Rivera's guidance applies to the case (as a basis for JMOL). | Torres-Santiago and Conde-González contend Landol-Rivera is distinguishable and inapplicable here. | Landol-Rivera is distinguished by claim type (constitutional tort vs. negligence); not controlling for this case. |
| Elements of Article 1802 negligence claim | Plaintiff must prove injury, breach, and proximate causation. | Same three elements apply and were satisfied by the evidence. | Plaintiff showed the required elements; jury found negligence caused damages to Burgos-Yantin. |
| Damages for related by blood/love and the decedent's pain | Family members may recover for wrongs arising from the decedent's death. | Decedent's pain or non-recovery by decedent bears on damages. | Under Puerto Rico law, relatives may recover damages; no manifest error in allowing Burgos-Yantin damages. |
| Proper standard for reconsideration | Rule 59(e) standards protect against manifest errors. | Reconsideration should be granted for manifest legal error or new material evidence. | Motion for reconsideration denied under Rule 59(e) standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Landol-Rivera v. Cruz Cosme, 906 F.2d 791 (1st Cir. 1990) (distinguishes constitutional tort from negligence; negligent firing alone may not prove due process)
- Ocasio v. Hogar Geobel, Inc., 693 F.Supp.2d 167 (D.P.R. 2008) (Article 1802 elements and standard for tort recovery)
- López Nieves v. Marrero Vergel, 939 F.Supp. 124 (D.P.R. 1996) (relatives may sue for unlawful death)
- Rivera Concepción v. Pepsi Cola of P.R., 288 F.Supp.2d 167 (D.P.R. 2003) (moral damages recognized for relatives by blood or affection)
- Torres Ríos v. Pereira Castillo, 545 F.Supp.2d 204 (D.P.R. 2007) (Puerto Rico tort damages framework and causation considerations)
- Montalvo v. González-Amparo, 587 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 2009) (implications for damages and tort liability in related claims)