Machado v. Yacht Haven U.S.V.I., LLC
2014 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 51
Supreme Court of The Virgin Is...2014Background
- On Nov. 7, 2008, Machado tripped on a raised sprinkler head while walking across a narrow, decorative median in the Yacht Haven Grande parking lot at night; she suffered serious leg fractures.
- The median separated parking rows, had trees/shrubbery, a sprinkler system (sprinkler heads designed to retract), and no designated pedestrian walkway or warning signs.
- Evidence showed many patrons and employees (including Yacht Haven staff) commonly crossed the median; Yacht Haven had no policy or posted warning discouraging this.
- Machado and a coworker testified the sprinkler heads were visible during the day, some were elevated/out of operation for months, and the lot was very dim the night of the fall.
- Yacht Haven moved for summary judgment arguing Machado exceeded any invitation (thus no duty), lacked proof of Yacht Haven’s notice of the dangerous condition, and had assumed the risk; the Superior Court granted summary judgment.
- The Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands reversed, holding genuine issues of material fact existed on duty, notice/breach, and that assumption of risk is not a bar to recovery under the Territory’s comparative negligence statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether landowner owed duty based on entrant’s status | Machado: foreseeability of patrons crossing median makes her presence foreseeable, so Yacht Haven owed duty | Yacht Haven: Machado exceeded invitation by entering decorative median, so only licensee/trespasser duties (less/no duty) apply | Court: Abolishes tripartite status for premises cases; duty governed by foreseeability of harm — Yacht Haven owed duty because use of median was foreseeable |
| Whether Yacht Haven had notice / breached duty | Machado: evidence sprinkler heads malfunctioned for months and lighting was poor — creates constructive/actual notice and breach | Yacht Haven: no evidence of prior incidents; lighting/layout met code; no notice of danger | Court: Machado presented sufficient evidence of notice/breach to create a triable issue; summary judgment improper |
| Whether Machado assumed the risk | Yacht Haven & Superior Ct.: median and low lighting were open/obvious; Machado assumed risk | Machado: disputed factual issues (lighting, sprinkler condition) for jury | Court: Implied assumption of risk cannot bar recovery under 5 V.I.C. § 1451(a); extent of plaintiff’s fault is for jury allocation under comparative negligence |
| Proper standard for premises liability in V.I. | Machado: follow Perez — foreseeability controls duty | Yacht Haven: adhere to traditional invitee/licensee/trespasser distinctions | Court: Extends Perez — adopt unitary foreseeability-based duty of reasonable care for all entrants; abolish status trichotomy |
Key Cases Cited
- Banks v. Int’l Rental & Leasing Corp., 55 V.I. 967 (V.I. 2011) (framework for adopting Virgin Islands common law rules)
- Perez v. Ritz-Carlton (V.I.), Inc., 59 V.I. 522 (V.I. 2013) (foreseeability is touchstone of land possessor’s duty)
- Rowland v. Christian, 443 P.2d 561 (Cal. 1968) (abolished invitee/licensee distinctions; urged reasonable-person standard)
- Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625 (U.S. 1959) (refused invitee/licensee distinction in maritime context)
- Monk v. V.I. Water & Power Auth., 53 F.3d 1381 (3d Cir. 1995) (discussed survival of assumption-of-risk after adoption of comparative negligence)
- Sealey-Christian v. Sunny Isle Shopping Ctr., Inc., 52 V.I. 410 (V.I. 2009) (assumption of risk is a jury question; courts should not resolve as matter of law)