Facts
- Elissa Machado finished work at a store in the Yacht Haven Grande complex on St. Thomas and walked to her car in the complex’s parking lot at about 6:25 p.m. on November 7, 2008.
- A three-foot-wide landscaped median separated parking rows; it was bordered by eight-inch curbs and contained trees, shrubbery, and a sprinkler system, with no marked pedestrian walkway across it.
- Machado parked on the far side of the median and crossed it using her “usual route,” as other patrons and employees had done; there were no warning signs and the property owner did not discourage the practice.
- Machado tripped over a sprinkler head in the median, fell over the curb, and fractured both bones in her lower right leg.
- Machado testified the area was “very, very dim” and that the lighting was poor; a coworker and paramedics used phone lights/flashlights to locate and assist her.
- Machado sued Yacht Haven U.S.V.I., LLC, asserting premises-liability negligence based on inadequate lighting and the placement or maintenance of the sprinkler head.
- The Superior Court granted Yacht Haven summary judgment after applying entrant-status categories (invitee/licensee/trespasser) and finding no duty.
- Machado appealed; the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands reviewed the summary judgment ruling de novo.
Issues
- Whether Virgin Islands premises-liability law should continue to determine duty using invitee/licensee/trespasser classifications or apply a unitary reasonable-care standard grounded in foreseeability.
- Whether, under the proper duty standard, genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment on Machado’s negligence claim.
- Whether assumption of risk remains a separate complete defense in Virgin Islands tort law or is generally addressed through comparative negligence.
Decision
- The Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded.
- The court abolished the invitee/licensee/trespasser trichotomy for premises-liability cases and adopted a general duty of reasonable care based on foreseeability of harm.
- The court held that assumption of risk is not a separate complete defense except where there is an express waiver or clear voluntary consent to a known risk; otherwise, the plaintiff’s conduct is considered under comparative negligence.
- The court concluded the record permitted a jury to find foreseeable risk and potential breach (including evidence of common pedestrian use of the median, lack of warnings, and dim lighting), creating genuine disputes of material fact.
Legal Principles
- In Virgin Islands premises-liability actions, a land possessor’s duty is governed by a unitary reasonable-care standard, with foreseeability as the central consideration.
- Foreseeability may be shown by the possessor’s knowledge of how people commonly use the property and the risk posed by existing conditions.
- Except for express waivers or voluntary consent to a known risk, assumption of risk does not operate as a complete bar; conduct formerly framed as assumption of risk is evaluated as comparative negligence under 5 V.I.C. § 1451(a), with fault allocation generally for the jury.
- Summary judgment is improper where evidence permits reasonable disagreement on duty, breach, or comparative fault in a negligence claim.
Conclusion
The court replaced entrant-status-based premises liability with a foreseeability-driven reasonable-care duty and limited assumption of risk to rare waiver/consent situations, requiring jury consideration of disputed facts about the hazard, lighting, foreseeability, and comparative fault.