403 F.Supp.3d 474
D.V.I.2019Background
- Plaintiff Carmen McAlpin Clarke slipped and fell in a bathtub at the St. Kitts Marriott Resort on June 27, 2008 and sued Marriott and related St. Kitts entities for negligence.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; the district court originally granted it, reasoning a bathtub’s slipperiness is an open-and-obvious danger and therefore no duty existed.
- Plaintiff obtained reconsideration after the V.I. Supreme Court’s decision in Machado changed Virgin Islands premises-liability analysis to focus on foreseeability of harm as the touchstone of duty.
- Following Machado, the court vacated its earlier summary-judgment ruling and ordered briefing on whether St. Kitts law (rather than Virgin Islands law) governs.
- The court determined St. Kitts substantive law applies, found Defendants had proved St. Kitts premises-liability principles via affidavit and regional caselaw, and held that under St. Kitts law the bathtub slipperiness posed no unusual danger.
- The court therefore reinstated summary judgment for Defendants and dismissed Plaintiff’s claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Defendants waived or are estopped from invoking St. Kitts law | Defendants failed timely Rule 44.1 notice and expert proof; previously conceded no conflict | Defendants gave notice in answers and Machado created a new conflict; expert proof may be produced later | No waiver or estoppel; answers sufficed as notice and later briefing was reasonable |
| What is the applicable law on premises liability (Virgin Islands vs St. Kitts)? | Machado altered V.I. law to require foreseeability analysis; thus V.I. law should apply to allow jury inquiry | St. Kitts law uses traditional common-law rule limiting duty to unusual dangers; it governs because injury occurred in St. Kitts | St. Kitts premises-liability law governs under choice-of-law analysis |
| Whether a conflict exists between V.I. and St. Kitts premises-liability standards | No material conflict—both require foreseeability as part of negligence | Yes—Machado adopted foreseeability as duty standard in V.I., while St. Kitts retains "unusual/open-and-obvious danger" limitation | A true conflict exists: V.I. focuses on foreseeability; St. Kitts retains the "unusual"/open-and-obvious limitation |
| Whether Defendants are entitled to summary judgment under applicable law | Machado would require denying summary judgment because foreseeability is jury question | Under St. Kitts law the bathtub’s slipperiness is a usual/open-and-obvious danger so no duty exists as matter of law | Applying St. Kitts law, summary judgment granted: slipperiness is not an unusual danger and Defendants owed no duty |
Key Cases Cited
- Machado v. Yacht Haven, 61 V.I. 373 (V.I. 2014) (adopting foreseeability as the touchstone of a land possessor’s duty in premises-liability claims)
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (1941) (federal courts in diversity apply forum state choice-of-law rules)
- Banks v. Int'l Rental & Leasing Corp., 55 V.I. 967 (V.I. 2011) (directs the Banks-analysis for selecting common-law rules for the Virgin Islands)
- Lacey v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 932 F.2d 170 (3d Cir. 1991) (discusses lex loci delicti and choice-of-law in tort cases)
- Budget Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc. v. Chappell, 407 F.3d 166 (3d Cir. 2005) (explains interest-analysis/hybrid choice-of-law approach)
- P.V. ex rel. T.V. v. Camp Jaycee, 962 A.2d 453 (N.J. 2008) (applies Restatement Second contacts and §6 cornerstones to tort choice-of-law)