Perez v. Ritz-Carlton (Virgin Islands), Inc.
59 V.I. 522
Supreme Court of The Virgin Is...2013Background
- On March 16, 2007, massage therapist Cenobia Perez (independent contractor) slipped on rain-wet stairs/pathway at the Ritz‑Carlton in St. Thomas after slipping on accumulated leaves, grass, dirt and debris and sustained serious injuries.
- Perez and her husband sued hotel owner/operators (RC Hotel, RCHC, and RCVI) for negligence and breach of contract; breach claims later dismissed for lack of contract evidence.
- At summary judgment the Superior Court granted judgment to the hotel defendants on negligence, finding no evidence of actual or constructive notice of the debris or defective stairs.
- Perezes supplemented the record with employee depositions and expert reports: employees testified leaves/debris routinely accumulate after rain and that staff sometimes observed people slip; expert said slope and materials caused debris/moss accumulation and other defects.
- The Supreme Court reviewed de novo and held that evidence of a recurring rain‑related debris condition (imputed from employee testimony) sufficed to create a triable issue on constructive notice, reversing summary judgment and remanding for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether constructive notice can be established by evidence of a recurring dangerous condition | Perezes: employee testimony and expert reports show rain routinely deposits debris on the stairs, creating a recurring dangerous condition and thus notice | Appellees: plaintiff offered no evidence how long debris was present on the day of the fall; mere weather conditions do not establish notice | Court: recurring‑condition/actual‑knowledge of frequent risk can establish constructive notice; employee testimony created a genuine issue for jury |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given the record | Perezes: sufficient admissible evidence creates fact issues about notice and reasonableness of maintenance | Appellees: maintenance regimen and lack of proof of duration of debris require summary judgment | Court: sufficiency of maintenance/reasonableness is factual and not resolvable on summary judgment; reversed |
| Whether recurring‑condition rule conflicts with Restatement § 343 and Virgin Islands law | Perezes: recurring‑condition rule flows from foreseeability and Restatement principles | Appellees: argued Restatement/Third Circuit law requires proof that condition existed long enough to give constructive notice | Court: recurring‑condition approach is consistent with Restatement §343 foreseeability analysis and may be used to show constructive notice |
| Whether other construction/defect theories must be decided now | Perezes: stairs allegedly defectively built (slope, handrails, materials) contributed to hazard | Appellees: argue absence of evidence of possession/defect | Court: did not reach construction/defect arguments because constructive‑notice triable issue precludes summary judgment; those issues remain for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Saldana v. Kmart Corp., 260 F.3d 228 (3d Cir.) (absence of evidence on how long hazard existed supports summary judgment)
- Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co., 162 N.E. 99 (N.Y. 1928) (foreseeability defines duty)
- Blair v. West Town Mall, 130 S.W.3d 761 (Tenn. 2004) (recurring condition/pattern may prove constructive notice)
- Mahoney v. J.C. Penney Co., 377 P.2d 663 (N.M. 1963) (knowledge of frequent recurrence can go to jury even without duration proof)
- Dumont v. Shaw’s Supermarkets, Inc., 664 A.2d 846 (Me. 1995) (possessor’s awareness of risk of recurrence supports constructive notice)
- Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292 (Tex. 1983) (reversal where recurring hazardous condition supports submission to jury)