556 F.Supp.3d 1
D.P.R.2021Background
- Sept. 27, 2017: Martínez‑Suárez, a guest at Mansiones de Garden Hills, descended an exterior staircase before sunrise (post‑Hurricane María) without exterior lighting and slipped on the last step, injuring her ankle.
- Plaintiff alleges negligence under Puerto Rico Article 1802 based on negligent design (uneven riser height) and failure to warn; suit filed in federal court (diversity).
- Stairs were designed by Architect Nelson Rivera‑Rodríguez/Nearq Studios in 2012; MQ Contractors performed construction; the Municipality later remodeled the adjacent sidewalk.
- Plaintiff’s expert (González‑Blanco) measured the as‑built stairs and opined nonuniform risers/treads but failed to identify which building code(s) governed the project; defendants’ expert (Calderón‑López) relied on the IBC and invoked an exception permitting a reduced bottom/top riser where a stair adjoins a sloping public way.
- Court found (1) Plaintiff’s expert report legally and methodologically deficient for failing to identify the applicable standard of care, (2) disputed construction variances were immaterial because sidewalk work by the Municipality altered the step, and (3) no probative evidence of foreseeability/prior similar incidents.
- Result: Court granted summary judgment for Mansiones and Nearq Studios and dismissed plaintiff’s claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stairs were negligently designed | Martínez‑Suárez: design produced uneven risers that made stairs unsafe and violated applicable codes | Mansiones/Nearq: design complied with applicable building codes (IBC) and was not defective | Court: Plaintiff failed to identify/apply an applicable code via reliable expert evidence; design defect not established; summary judgment for defendants |
| Whether there was a construction defect (as‑built vs. plans) | Plaintiff: stairs were not built according to the design and that caused the fall | Defendants: any deviations were due to Municipality sidewalk work; MQ Contractors (builder) is in bankruptcy so claims stayed | Court: Even if construction deviated, alteration by an external actor (Municipality) and IBC exception make deviation immaterial; construction variance does not create a triable design claim |
| Causation / foreseeability | Martínez‑Suárez: uneven last step was proximate cause of fall | Defendants: no prior similar incidents, hurricane conditions, darkness and lack of power were intervening/unforeseeable causes | Court: No evidence that the injury was foreseeable to defendants; surrounding circumstances were intervening causes; proximate cause lacking; summary judgment granted |
| Negligent maintenance / failure to warn | Plaintiff: Mansiones failed to warn visitors of the dangerous step | Defendants: complaint framed a design claim; Mansiones lacked proven legal capacity/detail to define maintenance duties; sidewalk under municipal control | Court: Could not meaningfully adjudicate a negligent‑maintenance claim because Mansiones’ legal status/authority over sidewalk was not established; claim also fails on merits given other deficiencies |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (movant’s summary‑judgment burden)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (standard for genuine dispute and construing evidence at summary judgment)
- Vázquez‑Filippetti v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, 504 F.3d 43 (distinction between negligent design and negligent maintenance)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (trial court gatekeeper role for expert testimony)
- Ruiz‑Troche v. Pepsi Cola of Puerto Rico Bottling Co., 161 F.3d 77 (reliability and relevance requirements for experts)
- Aponte‑Bermúdez v. Colón, 944 F.3d 963 (design claim fails if no applicable code/standard identified to guide the jury)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Daubert gatekeeping applies to technical and specialized expert testimony)