Government of the Virgin Islands v. Connor
2014 WL 702639
Supreme Court of The Virgin Is...2014Background
- On Dec. 1, 2010, the Estate of Dale Orrin Connor sued the Government of the Virgin Islands and the Department of Public Works for wrongful death and survival claims; bench trial held and Superior Court issued an opinion on Sept. 4, 2013.
- The Superior Court awarded the Estate $145,728.11 and relied on multiple Restatement provisions as the governing Virgin Islands common law, citing 1 V.I.C. § 4 (the former statute) as authority.
- This Court previously held that 1 V.I.C. § 4 was effectively repealed and that courts must not mechanistically apply Restatements but instead use a three-factor test from Banks to determine Virgin Islands common law.
- The Government and DPW appealed, arguing the Superior Court failed to undertake the Banks analysis and instead automatically applied Restatement provisions.
- The Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands concluded the Superior Court erred by relying on the implicitly repealed 1 V.I.C. § 4 and remanded for the Superior Court to apply the Banks three-factor analysis to determine the appropriate common-law rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Superior Court could mechanically apply Restatement provisions under 1 V.I.C. § 4 | Estate: Superior Court cited Banks in footnote and thus its reliance on Restatements was acceptable | Gov./DPW: Superior Court failed to perform Banks analysis and improperly applied Restatements via § 4 | Court: Superior Court erred; cannot mechanically apply Restatements under § 4 (implicitly repealed) |
| Proper method for identifying Virgin Islands common law | Estate: existing citations to Restatements support current ruling | Gov./DPW: Banks requires a three-factor analysis instead of automatic adoption | Court: Courts must apply Banks factors: (1) prior local adoption, (2) majority of other jurisdictions, (3) which rule is best for the Virgin Islands |
| Whether this Court should decide Banks factors on appeal or remand | Estate: remand unnecessary because Banks was cited | Gov./DPW: remand required because Superior Court did not perform Banks analysis | Court: Remand appropriate; Superior Court should perform Banks analysis in the first instance |
Key Cases Cited
- Banks v. Int’l Rental & Leasing Corp., 55 V.I. 967 (V.I. 2011) (establishing three-factor test for adopting common law instead of mechanically applying Restatements)
- Banks v. Int’l Rental & Leasing Corp., 680 F.3d 296 (3d Cir.) (discussing and endorsing the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands’ Banks reasoning)
- Matthew v. Herman, 56 V.I. 674 (V.I. 2012) (applying Banks factors and discussing application to local issues)
- Simon v. Joseph, 59 V.I. 611 (V.I. 2013) (noting repeal of 1 V.I.C. § 4 and instructing use of Banks factors)
- Hypolite v. People, 51 V.I. 97 (V.I. 2009) (distinguishing case remand from record remand and discussing remand procedures)