## Facts

- At about 4:00 a.m. on December 5, 2004, Paloma Rodríguez drove on the Muñoz Rivera Expressway in San Juan, Puerto Rico, hit a pothole, blew two tires, and stalled.
- Rodríguez moved her vehicle fully onto the shoulder, out of the travel lane.
- A police officer stopped to help and left emergency lights activated.
- A tow truck arrived, activated flashing lights, used a spotlight to illuminate the area, and placed cones to warn passing traffic.
- While the tow truck was preparing to load the car, Rodríguez re-entered her vehicle.
- Carlos Estrada, driving a Mitsubishi Mirage registered to Señor Frog’s de La Isla, Inc., approached at speed with headlights off and with a blood-alcohol level nearly twice the legal limit.
- Estrada struck the rear of Rodríguez’s vehicle, causing severe injuries.
- Rodríguez sued Señor Frog in federal court on negligence-related theories tied to Estrada’s use of the company-registered vehicle.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff proved California domicile at the time suit was filed, establishing complete diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding (a) evidence that Estrada “owned” the vehicle and (b) evidence that Rodríguez drank alcohol earlier in the evening.
3. Whether the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on contributory or comparative negligence under Puerto Rico law.
4. Whether an isolated closing-argument reference to Estrada’s deportation required a new trial.
5. Whether the $450,000 verdict was excessive, and how the appellant’s incomplete record affected appellate review.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the judgment in full.
- The court upheld the district court’s finding of diversity jurisdiction based on Rodríguez’s California domicile when the complaint was filed.
- The court held the challenged evidentiary exclusions were within the district court’s discretion.
- The court found no error in declining to give comparative-negligence instructions because the evidence did not support a reasonable finding of plaintiff fault.
- The court held the closing-argument remark did not warrant a new trial.
- The court upheld the damages award, emphasizing deference to the trial judge and jury and noting the appellant’s failure to provide a complete transcript record.

## Legal Principles

- For diversity jurisdiction, citizenship is determined by domicile at the time the complaint is filed; domicile requires physical presence plus intent to remain, proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
- A district court’s factual finding on domicile after an evidentiary hearing is reviewed for clear error, including credibility determinations based on live testimony.
- Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion; evidence with minimal probative value may be excluded where the risk of unfair prejudice, confusion, or misleading the jury substantially outweighs relevance.
- A comparative-negligence instruction is proper only when the record supports a trial-worthy issue that plaintiff conduct contributed to the harm.
- Motions for a new trial based on closing argument are reviewed deferentially; isolated remarks warrant relief only when they materially taint the proceedings.
- An appellant bears responsibility for providing an adequate record on appeal; omissions may defeat challenges to jury instructions or other trial rulings.
- Review of damages is highly deferential; a verdict is disturbed only when shown to be grossly excessive in light of the evidence and the trial court’s denial of remittitur.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit affirmed a $450,000 jury verdict for injuries caused by an intoxicated driver operating a company-registered vehicle, holding that diversity jurisdiction was properly established and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding certain evidence, declining comparative-negligence instructions, denying a new trial, or sustaining the damages award.


Rodríguez v. Señor Frog’s de La Isla, Inc., 642 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 2011)