Otero Santana, Olga Evelyn v. Corporacion A
KLCE202400264
Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue...Mar 19, 2024Background
- Olga Evelyn Otero Santana sued several parties, including the Municipality of San Juan (MSJ), Óptima Seguros, Bermúdez Investment Corp, and W Tacos, after she allegedly fell on a wet, sloped ramp outside a restaurant and sustained serious injuries.
- Otero Santana claimed the area lacked proper maintenance, illumination, and a handrail, which she alleged contributed to her fall and subsequent injuries including a fractured ankle and complex regional pain syndrome.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Otero Santana admitted she lost balance while greeting someone and that there was insufficient evidence connecting her injuries to any defendant's negligence, a lack of proof of dangerous conditions, or failure to comply with procedural requirements.
- The trial court denied the summary judgment motion, finding genuine factual disputes regarding the ramp’s condition, whether it complied with building codes, and the presence or absence of a handrail, among others.
- The defendants sought appellate review (certiorari), arguing primarily for dismissal based on insufficient evidence and lack of disputed material facts.
- The Court of Appeals consolidated the cases, held that some facts were indeed uncontested (e.g., plaintiff’s lack of memory about the fall and not seeing slime on the ramp), but found there remained key factual disputes requiring trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment is proper due to | Sufficient disputed facts (ramp's condition, maintenance, handrail) | No evidence of negligence or dangerous condition; fall caused otherwise | Not proper; material factual disputes preclude summary judgment |
| insufficient evidence of liability | necessitate trial. | and lacking proof linking negligence to injuries. | |
| Whether certain facts are undisputed | Disputes certain facts (e.g., timing of photos, ramp condition on date) | Argues no evidence to contest certain key facts (plaintiff’s own admissions) | Some facts (plaintiff’s memory loss, not seeing slime) are uncontested, |
| but others remain disputed, requiring trial. | |||
| Whether causation and negligence can be resolved | Argues need for trial, expert testimony to resolve causation/negligence | Claims plaintiff’s admissions and lack of additional testimony are fatal | Issues of negligence/cause not ripe for summary judgment; must be tried |
| as a matter of law | to her case. | ||
| Whether the trial court erred in refusing to | Supports trial court’s weighing of factual disputes | Argues trial court should have declared no factual disputes on liability | Trial court correctly denied summary judgment; factual disputes remain |
| declare no genuine disputes on key facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Cotto Guadalupe v. C.M. Ins., 116 DPR 644 (P.R. 1985) (duty of business owners to maintain premises in reasonably safe condition for patrons)
- Colón y otros v. K-Mart y otros, 154 DPR 510 (P.R. 2001) (plaintiff must prove dangerous condition, causation, and that owner had or should have had knowledge)
- Oriental Bank v. Caballero García, 212 DPR _ (P.R. 2023) (summary judgment standard under Puerto Rico law)
- Ramos Pérez v. Univisión, 178 DPR 200 (P.R. 2010) (summary judgment is disfavored when intent or negligence are at issue)
- Nieves Díaz v. González Massas, 178 DPR 820 (P.R. 2010) (elements of liability under Article 1802 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code)