Garcia Muñoz, Sayra v. Rodriguez Bonano, Jay, KLAN202400088

Sayra García Muñoz, on behalf of herself and her minor child S.M.V.G., sued Jay Rodríguez Bonano and others for damages following the killing of Edwin Manuel Vélez Lara (García's partner and S.M.V.G.'s father), who was shot by Rodríguez Bonano during an alleged burglary attempt at a neighbor’s residence.
García claimed Rodríguez Bonano acted negligently and intentionally by shooting Vélez Lara and then preventing others from calling emergency services.
The defendant denied the allegations and raised affirmative defenses, including self-defense.
The trial court initially granted summary judgment for defendant, but this was overturned on appeal because material facts remained in dispute.
After a full trial, the court dismissed García’s claim with prejudice, finding insufficient proof of negligence or causation by Rodríguez Bonano. García appealed this final judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial court err in finding no causation and in misweighing evidence?	TPI misapplied the law and misunderstood evidence, failing to see causation between Rodríguez's conduct and damages.	No evidence met the burden for causation or negligence; plaintiff didn’t prove her case.	No error; plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proof.
Was the plaintiff denied the right to cross-examine Rodríguez Bonano?	TPI prevented proper cross-examination by upholding objections.	Objection was properly made and sustained; García chose not to proceed further.	No error; opportunity for cross-examination was not truly denied.
Did the TPI decide the case improperly based solely on expert (perito) testimony?	TPI erred by basing decision on the testimony of a witness not qualified as a perito.	The witness (prosecutor) testified as a fact witness, not as an expert/perito.	No error; the court did not rely solely on perito testimony.
Did the TPI abuse its discretion generally in evaluating the case and evidence?	TPI misapplied discretion, ignored credible evidence, and failed to follow legal standards.	TPI's factual and credibility determinations are entitled to deference absent clear error.	No abuse; determinations supported by the record and legal standards.

210 DPR 465 (2022) (clarifies requirements of causation in Puerto Rico tort law)
171 DPR 717 (2007) (appellate deference to trial court factual findings)
169 DPR 135 (2006) (standard for negligence as failure to anticipate rational consequences)
138 DPR 298 (1995) (damages must be real and not speculative for recovery)
117 DPR 94 (1986) (duty to act and liability for omissions under negligence law)
113 DPR 357 (1982) (role of trial court in weighing live testimony and demeanor)