IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST THOMAS AND ST JOHN
FLIZABETH SERVICE ) CASE NO ST 2016 CV 00597
)
Plaintiff ) ACTION FOR DAMAGES
vs )
) IURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ISIDOR PAIEWONSKY ASSOCIATES INC )
)
Defendant )
Cite as 2022 VI Super 8U
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
1 INTRODUCTION
10 THIS MATTER is before the Court on the following
1 Elder Paiewonsky 5 Motion for Summary Judgment filed on January 31 2020
2 Plaintiff 5 Opposition to Defendant s Renewed Rule 56 Motion filed on February
4 2020
3 Isidor Paiewonsky 5 Reply to Plaintiff‘s Response in Opposition to Defendant s
Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment filed on February 18 2020
4 Plaintiffs Supplemental Request Re Summary Judgment filed on April 26 2021
5 Plaintiff 3 Second Supplemental Request for Ruling Re Summary Judgment
filed on August 9 2021 and
6 Plaintiff‘s Third Request for Ruling Re Summary Judgment filed on Octobcr 15
2021
112 Viewing all reasonable inferences drawn from the cvidence provided in a light most
favorable to Plaintiff Elizabeth Service ( Service ) as the non moving party and taking all
properly supported allegations as tme the Court finds that there exist genuine issues as to material
facts which requircs denial of Defendant Isidor Paiewonsky [Assouiates Inc ]’S Motion for
Summary ludgment
Elizabeth Service v Imlur Pmewnmky Assacmlas Inc 2022 V1 Super 8U
Case No ST 2016 CV 00597
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 2 of 13
II FACTUAL AND PROCFDURAL BACKGROUND
1T3 This case presents claims of negligence and premises liability by Service, a former store
manager for Little Switzerland against the store 5 landlord Isidor Paiewonsky Associates Inc
( IPA ) Service alleges that on March 10 2016 while preparing to open the store she raised an
awning by flipping it out and secured the latch, but as she walked inside to tie the rope the
awning fell and hit her in the back of the head ' Service sought medical attention as a result of
this incident and she was subsequently diagnosed as suffering from a very serious permanent and
marked impairment and brain damage ’2 IPA claims that “[p]ursuant to its Lease Agreement with
I ittle Switzerland [it] owed no legal duty to the Plaintiff to maintain and repair the subject store
awning[J 3 and therefore should not be held liable
$14 On December 23 200‘) Little Switzerland and IPA entered into a Lease which provided
in relevant part responsibilities of IPA as Landlord with respect to the Demised Premises in
question
12 LIABILITY
A The Landlord assumes no liability or responsibility whatsoever with
respect to the conduct and operation of the business to be conducted in the Demised
Premises The Landlord shall not be liable for any accident to or injury to any
person or persons or property in OI about the Demised Premises which are caused
by the conduct and operation at said business or by virtue of equipment or property
ot the Tenant in said premises
D The Landlurd shall not be liable to the Tenant its members
employees, agents representatives, invitees, licensees, or guests for (i) any
damage, compensation or claim arising from the necessity ofrepairing any portion
ofthe Dcmised Premises, (ii) any interruption in the use of the Demised Premises,
(iii) any injury or damage resulting from the use or operation (by the i andlord, the
Tenant or any other person) of the cooling electrical or plumbing systems or
equipment
19 REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE 01* DEMISED PREMISES
A The Landlord shall at its expense maintain and perform any repairs
necessary to keep the roof foundation exterior walls and othei structural
components at the Building in structurally sound condition
'Def 5M0! tor Summ J at4
PI sOpp m Der Rule56 Mot at7(referemmg Ex 4)
‘Def sMot tor Summ J atZ
Ellzalu'lh Service v [Ht]!!! PtllEWUHSky Associates, [m 2022 V1 Super 8U
Case No ST 2016 CV 00597
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 3 or 13
C The Tenant covenants and agrees that in all other respects the exterior and
interior ofthe Demised Premises, including, without limitation painting, windows
doors ceilings floors walls attachments fixtures electrical plumbing air
conditioning and all other systems and equipment shall be maintained repaired
and kept in good order and condition, 0] replaced if necessary, at the expense of
Tenant If any systems or equipment are designed to serve the Demised Premises
and other premises in the Building I andlord shall cause any repairs maintenance
and/or replacements thereof to [b]e made and within ten (10) days after demand
theretor Tenant shall pay to I andlord its proportionate share of the cost of any such
work If the I and101d deems that any maintenance or repairs are necessary or that
Tenant has failed to perform its obligations under this Paragraph I andlord may
demand that the Ienant make the same and if the Tenant refuses or fails to do so
within ten (10) days after demand theretor the Landlord may make or cause to
be made such maintenance or repairs and shall not be responsible to the Tenant for
any loss or damage If the Landlord makes or causes to be made such repairs the
Tenant shall pay to the Landlord the cost thexeof 4
1I5 In the same I ease, the parties also agreed to a modification that would commence no earlier
than May I 2010 and no later than June 30 2010 that reduced the size of the Demised Premises
C Modification 0f Premises Landlord and Tenant agree that the Denliied
Plemises shall be modified to reduce the si7e 0f the Demised Premises to
approximately 1 888 square feet uhieh shall include approximately 1 818 square
feet 0fretail space [ ]’
{[6 In its Motion for Summary Judgment IPA argues that the Lease unambiguously imposes
the duty to repair the awnings on Little Switzerland[ ] 6 therefore it owed no legal duty to the
Plaintitt to maintain and repair the subject store awning 7 and should not be held liable
Conversely Service claims that IPA did have a duty to make sure the awnings were safe and that
[t]here are material issues offaet in dispute as to whether Paiewonsky had notice of the dangerous
eundition ofthe awning “3
1W According to IPA [t]he awning in question was attached by a hinge to a metal frame
inside the store 9 Its claim that the hinge was located inside the store is not Supported by the
diagram that depicts the dimensions at the Demised Premises Aceurding to IPA “[W]hen opening
the store [Service] would allow the awning to swing out from the inside of the store so that it
Lould be latched onto the exterior of the building '0 The parties agree that the awning in question
‘Def sMot ferSumm J Ex B
5 Def 5M0! for Summ J Ex B
“Def 5M0! for Summ J at8
7Def 5 Mot for Summ J at2
a Fl 5 Opp to Defs Renewed Men For Summ I at 1.:
9Def sMot tor Summ J at4
“' Id
Elizabeth Same v 1mm Palewvns/g Amunm, Inc 2022 v1 Super 8U
Case No ST 2016 CV 00597
Memurandum Opinion and Order
Page 4 nf13
was required to open and had to be latched t0 the outside ofthe building ” However the parties
disagree as to whether the latch of the awning itself was located within the interior or exterior of
the building (i e within the Demised Premises) The photos below depict where the awning latch
was located
/ ’ s k
I t
I I
I /
/
I
/P'
t r’ f I
t!
5%
I
' 1
{Eff 4mg. ‘
t te
3 t
e 3” m, ‘
.t - ~ ,. , *1
118 Prior to the March 10 2016 incident Service made two reports to little Switzerland
management that the awning was not working properly ‘2 In its Motion for Summary Judgment
IPA argues that [tjhesc reports were never forwarded to [it] and therefore [it] was entirely
unaware that the awning [was] not working properly '3 In response Service claims that not only
did IPA have a duty of care to maintain the awning it knew or should have known of the
dangerous condition of the awing [ttc] and taken steps to address it” H IPA’s “President and
Director at Real Estate James Eilen admitted seeing persons like Ms Service opening the
” Fl 5 Opp to Def 5 Renewed Rule 56 Mot at 3
' Sec Ex A of Dep ufEliZabeth Service 34 [A 17
” Def 3 Mot fur Summ J at4 (referencing Janus Ellen deposition 14 25 15 1 4)
” Pl 5 Opp to Bet 5 Rule 56 Mot at l;
Elizabeth Strung v luan Paiewunslry Achmlm, lm. 2022 VI Super 8U
Case No ST 2016 CV 00597
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 5 01‘ 13
awnings by themselves, WltiLh he said was unsate[,]”" yet took no action to stop the dangerous
practice
“I LEGAL STANDARDS
3 Summary Judgment
1P) Virgin Islands Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that [a] party may move tor summary
judgment, identifying each claim or defenseAQr the part of each claim or defense on which
summary judgment is suught '6 The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of
demonstrating that there is no genuine issue of any material fact and that it is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law ‘7 This bu1den may be met by pointing out that there is an absence of evidence
to support a particular element ofthe nonmoving party 5 case '3
1110 Ones the moving party makes its showing the opposing party must make a showing
sufficient to establish existence of [every] element essential to that party 5 case and on which that
party will bear the buiden ofproofat trial ‘9 The opposing party may not rest on mere allegations
but must present actual evidence showing a genuine issue for trial 2” 1'he patty opposing summary
judgment shall affix to [its brief] copies of and cite to the precise ponions ofthc record relied
upon as evidence of each material fact 2‘ The opposing party must provide more than a scintilla
at supporting evidence to survive a motion for summary judgment 22 A fact is material where it
might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law[j 23 Further
because summaryjudgment is a drastic remedy the grant of a motion for summaryjuclgmcnt is
allowed only where the moving party shows that the pleadings the discovery and disclosure
materials on file and any affidavits, show there is no genuine issue as to any material tact "’24
[A]single nonconclusory affidavit or witness s testimony when based on personal knowledge
and directed at a material issue is sufficient to defeat summaryjudgment orjudgment as a matter
of law 2’
" Pl 5 Mat [110pp n to Bets Renewed Mot For Summ J at 13
"’V1 R Civ P 56(a)
'7 [d
'3 Williams» UmmdLor/J 50VI 191 19; 93 (VI 2008)
"’ Chapman 1 Cornwall 58 V1 431 436 (V [ 2013)
° William; 50 v1 at 194
‘Bmic Yam Inc v Govt oflhe I I 71 V l 652 658 59 (2019) (citing Willmrm v Untzedflmp 50 VI 191 194
(VI 2008))
” Andelsan v Am den 0/ Teacher; 67 V I 777 788 89 [20”) (citing Para 1/ R11 Curlmn(V1rgmlrIamIs) [m
59 V1 522 527 28 (V1 20l8))
3W1111nmsv Ummde 50v1 191 194(v1 2008)quoting Andersonv Lthcuylabby Inc 47711 5 242
243 (1986)
‘ Basic Saws [m v Cat I uf/hz P I 71 V1 652 658 59(2019)(c1[mg Wzlhalm v UnrledLorp
50 VI 19] [94
(VI 2008))
5 Cappuccm v [rune Capital Fundmg LLC 649 1' 3d 180 |89 90 (3d Cir 2011)(cmng Kzrleu v Dickn McCumey
& Chtlmle I’ C 560 F 3d [56 |6|$3 (3d C1: 2009))
Elizabeth smug v km», Palewlmsky Assaciales Inc 2022 V1 Super 8U
Case No 5T 2016 CV 00597
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 6 of 1.3
1111 In considering the evidence provided by both parties, the Court is required to view all
inferences to be drawn from that evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving patty betore
ruling M
b Negligence and Premises Liability
1112 It is well established that the elements Ufa negligence cause of action are (1) a legal duty
of care to the plaintiff (2) defendants breach of that duty of care (3) factual and legal causation
and (4) damages 27 Proximate cause is established where the party who bears the burden shows
that an original act is wrongful or negligent and in a natural and continuous sequence produees a
result which would not have taken place withaut the act H To detelmine whether a duty exists
the court must consider the tollowing factors (1) the reasonable foreseeability 0f the injury (2)
the likelihood of injury (3) the magnitude of the burden of guarding against the injury and (4) the
consequences 01 placing that burden on defendant ’29
{[13 The Supreme Court ofthe Virgin Islands has “recognized foreseeability as the touchstone
ofpremises liability because foreseeability permeates every element 01a negligence claim ’30 In
Aubain v Kan Foodx 0/th V] [m the Court explained that in the context 0t aptemises liability
action a plaintiff must establish breach of duty by showing that the defendant had actual or
constructive notice at the dangerous condition ”31 further ‘while foreseeability ofharm and notice
of a dangerous condition share a certain conceptual overlap [][n]otice requires a far more
concrete inquin into the partiLular cause of injury ”32 Aubum reasoned that ‘[e]ven in the
absence 0f direct evidence establishing the precise length of time a dangerous condition existed, a
plaintiff may satisfy the constructive notice requirement by introduting evidence tending to show
that the defendant tailed to conduct reasonably frequent and thorough inspections of the
premises ”H
1114 Furthermore in Perez, ‘[1]iability for foreseeable harm is based on the possessor’s
superior knowledge of the property as the possessor is in the best position to know at potentially
dangerous conditions on the property 34 In Machado the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
used foreseeability of harm to ascertain a land possessor’s duty of reasonable or ordinary care in
premises liability actions
5111llmmv v Ummdtorp 50 V1 191 194(VI 2003)
7 Comm] 4!: Tramp v Ray,» 64 VI 649 651 (VI 2016) 92¢ alto Mmhacla v 1’11th Hm en US! I LLL 61
v1 373 380 (V1 2014)
’“ 9ealeychmzmn t Yunny Isle Shopping Lemar IIIL, 52 v I 410 (VI 2009), overruled 0n whey glollnds
by Mnchadu 61 V [ 31385 86
2 Auburn v K0 (Faadr 0/ V I [m 70 V1 943 950 (2019)(quolmg Bodkin v :40] 8‘ P [m 768 N E 2d 194 20;
(111 App Ct 2002)
0 Id
' Id (referencing Pm 59 VI at 529 30)
Id
1 Id
‘ Pare V R12 (urban (Vngm [rlundy Inc 59 VI at 5;; (V I 2018))
51mm”. smug v Isldall’mewamky Aswuatev, Inc 2022 v1 Suer w
Case No ST 2016 CV 00597
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 7 of 13
Characteri7ati0n of an entrant as an invitee, licensee, or trespasaet has no bearing
on the possessor s superior knowledge of the property and to allow summary
judgment where there is evidence that a plaintiffs injury was toteseeable try a land
possessor yet the possessor did not take reasonable action to prevent that injury
inappropriately places the focus of attention on the plaintiff s actions alone 3‘
1115 Manhado explained that in the absence of actual notice evidence that the owner should
have dlseovered the danger and taken >teps to remedy it can establish constructive notice 3"
Additionally the Court recognized that one way that notice of a dangerous Londition can he
imputed to a land possessor is through evidence that the condition persisted over a long enough
period of time that the ownet should have become aware at it through the existence of reasonable
care ’37 Nevertheless, the constructive notice requirement will not be satisfied when a defendant
introduces uncontroverted evidence showing that the defect could not have been discovered even
through reasonable inspection 3"
IV ANALYSIS
$116 At issue in the instant Motion for Summary Judgment is whether IPA owed a duty to
maintain and repair the awning that injured Service Upon review ofthe parties’ pleadings relevant
testimony and all other reasonable inferences from the evidence in the light most favorable to
Service, the Court finds that there exists a genuine dispute as to certain material facts concerning
(1) respensibility to repair and maintain the awning in question and (2) whether at a minimum
IPA had constructive notice of the danger of the awning causing injury
A The Court finds that the awning and its supporting mechaniwms were located on
exterior walls that were the responsibility of Isidore Paiewonsky Associates, Inc
fl” lhe Court finds that the parties modification to the I ease reduced the Demised Premises
to an area within the walls of the building owned by IPA and that the awning and its supporting
mechanisms were located on exterior walls that were the responsibility of [PA
$118 Paragraph 19 0f the Lease governs the applicable landlord and tenant duties to repair and
maintain the Demiscd Premises In pertinent part the landlord (ie IPA) shall maintain and
perform any repairs necessary to keep the roof foundation exterior walls and other stmctural
components ofthe Building in structurally sound condition ” It further states, in all other respects
the exterior and interior 0fthe Demised Premises shall he maintained, repaired and kept in good
order and condition or replaced it necessary at the expense ot the Tenant ‘9 Subsection C
indicates that the tenant (i e , I ittle Switzerland) is responsible for maintaining and repairing ‘ all
other respects [of] the exterior and interior of the Demised Premises including attachments and
fixtures
’5 MHthZdt) at )86
“ MHLhfldt) 61 V] at 392 J9.) (quonng WIIIIaIm 50 V I at 195 196)
71d at :9;
"Auburn am 2
‘7 Def Mot fol Summaly Judgment E\ 2
Elizabeth Strung v lsldar Palewnuslry Anaemia, Inc 2022 V1 Super 8U
Case No ST 2016 CV 00597
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 8 of 13
$119 IPA argues in its Motion that it did not possess a duty to maintain and repair the awning
First it claims that [t]he duty to protect others from injury resulting from a dangerous Londition
on a premises does not rest on tegal ownership of the dangerous area but on the right to control
access by third parties 40 Second IPA Claims that the Lease unambiguously imposes the duty to
repair the awnings on Little Switzerland 4' In support it argues that Plaintiff‘s Complaint is
devoid ofany allegation that the building was structurally unsound [and] [i]n the absence ofany
such allegation the duty to repair would default to little Switzerland through the catch ail
language in the Lease 4’ Further IPA argues that the awning in ordinary use should be
considered an attachment or fixture which [is] Little Switzeiland S responsibility to repair 4}
Lastly IPA argues should the Court choose to consider extrinsic eVidence the conduct between
the parties to the Lease reinfortes Little Switzerland s responsibility to maintain and repair the
awnings ‘4
$20 In nontrast Service asserts in her Opposition that the Lease did not include the entire
building but only a ponion 0f the interior 01 the building’ 4‘ and the “awnings in question were
attauhed to the portion ofthe plemises retained by the I andlord Paiewonsky Which was expressly
excluded from the Demised Premise "45 Service further states that the Lease agreement ‘ marks the
interior of the store area as being 49 11 3/4 by 47 11 1/2 which makes it even clearer that the
parties carefully excluded the doorway sections from the lease ‘7 Funhermore Service claims
that the awnings were on the building before the lease even started [so] theie can be [10 dispute
that Paiewonsky owned them ‘8 Service contends that the tact that the tenant attempted to repair
the awnings does not relieve the landlord of its separate duty to make its retained portion of the
premises safe to invitees such as Service as the duty to maintain one s premises in a reasonably
safe condition is a non delegable duty ‘9
1121 Generally Courts in the Virgin Islands decline to consider extrinsic evidence when the
written terms of a contract appear unambiguous ”’0 However ‘[b]efore making a finding
concerning the existence or absence of an ambiguity [the Court will] consider the contract
language and the extrinsic evidence offered in support ofcach interpretation ’ rather than simply
determine whether the language is clear from the Court’s point of V1LW 3‘ ‘ Ordinaxily when the
terms of a comma are unambiguous the Superier Court treats the issue at the meaning of those
terms as a question of law, but if the terms are ambiguous the issue of the meaning ofthe terms
4” Def 3 M01 for Summ J at 7
“ Def :Mot for Summ J atS
’7 Def 5 Mat for Summ J at 8
’3 Def 5 Mat fur Summ J at8
“ Def sMut fur Summ J at IO
‘5 Pl 5 Opp Iu DLf : Rule 56 Mot at 2
‘6 Pl 5 Opp m Def : Rule 56 Mot at 10
‘7 Pl 3 Opp to Def : Rule 56 Mot 21111
‘8 Pl 5 Opp to Def : Rule 56 Mot at 11
”Pl 5 Opp to Def 5 Rule 56 Mot at 12 (referencing Machada at 394)
5" White v Spemelev Realty LLC 53 V I 666 678 (2010)
5' Id
bllzubetli Service v hid!” PIIIEWHHYk} Asxucitlles, Inc 2022 VI Super 8U
Case No ST 2016 CV 00597
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 9 of 13
becomes a question of tact ”2
Extrinsic etidence may inelude the conduct of the panies that reflects their
understanding of the contract’s meaning, Nevertheless, a finding that extrinsic
evidenLe tenders a contract latently ambiguous will typically defeat a motion tor
summary judgment and necessitate that the trier of tact resolve the ambiguity in
light of the extrinsic evidence Appellate LOLlrIS however have held that
notwithstanding a latent ambiguity it the court finds that a contract is
ambiguous and that the extlinsie evidence is undisputed then the interpretation of
the contract remains a question of law fox the noun to decide” at the summary
judgment stage ‘3
$122 Here IPA argues that the Court should consider extrinsic evidence that Little Switzerland
used their own maintenance worker to make awning repairs prior to the incident in question “
However the mere tact that the tenant made prior repairs to the awning does not relieve [PA of its
duty to maintain the premise in a reasonably safe condition 5 Therefore the Court finds that the
diagrams and language of the Lease unambiguously show that the exterior walls of the building
to which the awnings were attached are not part at the Demised Premises as shown in Fxhibit B
.r / fl
\
A A v V j 4‘ XI,
I l ‘1
t i
1 w a
.
'‘ it
r
.
:1 t1
3 ~
tg 31
z
V
: g '5 ~
i , z
I ' t
m I
-. ‘lr ,
“ i‘ t i meant e?“ a It" ‘ r I
1B4 In accardance With Paragraph 19 01 the Lease, IPA is responsible for maintaining any
repairs netessary to keep the exterior walls and othei structural components at the building in
sound condition The depiction above shows that the area Where the awnings were latched to the
exterior wall is not within the Demised Premises Further the Court finds that the measurements
5 UWIILdLUV‘p v TumPurltLtd 55 VI 702 707 (2011)
White v Spencelcy Rum} LLL 53 V I 666 678 79 (V I 2010) (citin Teami/eri Indus Emplayee: thfme Fund
v Rail: Rune Molar (.11) Y Inc
989 F 2d 132 135 (Jul Cir [993» (citations omitted) and In re Lolumbm (rm 3) slam
[m 50 F 3d 2.).) 241 (3d Cir 1995) (citations omitted»
‘Def sMot for Summ J at 10
>‘ See 2 g Machado (maintaining its property in a reasonably safe condition is the very essence of duty of care)
Elizabeth Service v 1mm Patewunsky Axxuclares, 1m 2022 v1 Super 8U
Case No ST 2016 CV 00597
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 10 11le
for the interior ofthe store as found in the Lease agreement being 49 11 3/4 by 47’11 1/2 clearly
omits the doorway settions from the Demised Premises
{l25 Although IPA argues that the awning was not its responsibility because it was attached to
the exterior portion of the Demised Premises the Court finds that the area in Whth the latch was
located according to the plain language of the Lease would not be consideted part of the Demised
Premises Because the aming latch is located within an area ietained by IPA and not included in
the description of the Demised Premises 0fthe Lease IPA has failed to meet its butden of proof
that it did not owe a duty to maintain and repair the awning
1126 The Court finds that IPA s characterization or description of the awning its operational
and support mechanisms are not supported by references to the record Further Section 12 at the
l ease agreement relied upon by IPA does not address the awning and does not absolve IPA of
liability with respect to the failure at the awning to remain in place
B The Court finds that there are genuine issues of material fan as to whether
Paiewonsky had constructive notice of the dangerous condition of the awning
1R7 In cases of premises liability in the Virgin Islands a plaintift may show a breach 0t duty
by establishing that the defendant had aetual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition 5"
Evidence that the dangerous condition persisted for many months prior to the incident sufficiently
creates ajury question of notice ‘7
{[28 Here Service claims that [bJased on this record the evidence clearly supports a ituy
(inding that Paiewonsky knew or should have known about the problems with the awning
because at the multiple emails that were sent prior to the incident , the near misses that other
employees ofLittle Switzerland will testify about and the testimony of Mr Ellen that he knew the
opetation ofthe awning was a two personjob yet he did not alert anyone to this danger ’8 In sum
Service 5 Opposition sets forth that a jury could reasonably conclude that this defective awning
condition persisted for a sufficient amount of time such that Paiewonsky knew or should have
known about it breaching its duty to correct this dangerous condition “’
$129 In contrast IPA relies upon the evidence that Serviee and others had reported problems
with the awnings directly to Little Switzerland and not to IPA {‘0 Service 5 response is that having
never seen the Lease she did not realize that she should have sent her emails to IPA Given that
Service was operating the awning in her capacity as store manager its is not unreasonable for her
to report problems to her superiors and not to her employer 5 landlord
‘5 Auburn at 950 (referencing Pare 59 v l at 529 30)
"See MaLhuda (referencing Daughter) v City 27me Yurk 524 N Y 5 2d 703 706 (N Y App Div 1933))
SEPl sOpp m m s RuleSfi Mot £1115
”PI sOpp to Def 5 Rule 56 Mot at 16
5“ Det 5 Reply to Pl 5 Resp in Opp t0 Def 5 Renewed Mot for Summ J 6 (referencing Exhibits G and H from
Service tol ittle Switzerland attached to Def 5 Mot fur Summ Jud)
Elizabeth Senate v Ind», Palzwnnxk} Assocmlm, [m 2022 VI Super 8U
Case No ST 2016 cv 00597
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 11 of 13
1110 IPA relies upon testimony that in response to Service 5 reports about the Ewing I ittle
Switzerland used their own maintenance worker to change the latches and drill new holes 6‘ IPA
additionally argues that on another occasion Service reported her March 10 2016 injuries to
Little Switzerland and submitted a corresponding Work oxder to fix the awning [but] Little
Switzerland neither notified Isidor Paiewonsky of the Plaintist incident nor submitted any
related maintenance requests for the awnings "(‘2 IPA cites to the Affidavits of Little Swit7erland’s
employees to support its argument that there was a mutual understanding between Little
Switzerland and Isidor Paiewonsky that Little Switzerland Was responsible tor the awnings
attached to its storefmnt ‘3 The alleged mutual understanding as to responsibility for repait of the
awning is undermined by the I ease agreement 5 section 25 1‘ entitled Entire Agreement
Modification that provides this Lease may not be modified changed or terminated in whole
or in part in any manner other than by an agreement in writing signed by all parties hereto The
Court fu11her finds that IPA s reliance upon prior problems with the awnings that were reported
prior to the March 10 2016 incident also supports the argument that the IPA had ample time and
0pp01tunity to inspect and discovet problems with the awning’s defective latch mechanism As a
result the Court finds there exists a genuine dispute as to whether IPA had constructive knovtledge
ofthe awning’s dangeious condition
1130 Machado prevides that evidence that a dangerous eonditivn persisted for many months
prior to the incident is sufficient to create a jury question ofnotice 5‘ In this case Service emailed
her supervisor and building superintendent, Dilip Wadhwani on June 17, 2015, stating‘ my front
door awning is rubbing during opening and closing and it s becoming damaged Additionally
on November 2 2015 Service emailed management of Little Switzerland Sophia Rosario stating
that the “awnings are rubbing wall and tearing Paint is rubbed away in main entrance due to
awning issue ”‘73
{[31 The Court agrees that IPA 5 President and Director of Real Estate James Eilen s admission
or observation that it was unsafe 101' a single person to open the awnings supports a finding that
IPA had constructive notice it not actual notice at the awning 5 potential dangers 1n the absence
of actual notice evidence that the owner should have discovered the danger and taken steps to
remedy it can establish constructive notice ”('5 Machado explained that one ‘way that notiee Ufa
dangerous condition can be imputed to a land possessor is through evidence that the condition
persisted over a long enough period 0ftime that the owner should hate became aware ofit through
the existence of reasonable care ’ 67
“ Pl Mot for Summ J S (referencing P] s Resp to Bet s Interrog 9 attached as EX D)
5 Pl 5 Opp t0 Def 5 Rule 56 Mot at 15 (referencmg Eilen Dept) 14 23 15 l 4)
5‘ Def 5 Mot {01 Summ J at 12 [utmg Ex land] Dilip Wadhwani Little Switzerland 3 Director ufUperations and
Sophia Rosario Little Switzerland 5 Project Manager)
6‘ Maahuda at 39; (refermcmg Daughtyv Cu; ofNew York 524 N Y 5 2d 703 706 [N Y App Div 1988) M 11/51)
Burthulamet v Casey 651 A 2d 908 919 20 (Md Ct Spec App 1994)( evidence ot a constant state ufdisrepair for
one manth was sufficient to create aju1y question as to notice )
“5 EX 5 of P1 Opp
“6 Muchudu 61 V l at 293 395 (quoting WllIlanS 50 V 1 at 195 196)
"7 Id at 393
Elizabeth ServiLe v Imlor Palewansky Assauutes, Inc 2022 V1 Super 8U
Case No ST 2016 CV 00597
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 12 of13
$132 Additionally in Auhm'n the Supreme Lourt of the Virgin Islands opined that constructive
knowledge may be presumed from prior reoceun’ing conditions
We have prevlnusly recognized that one way that notice of a dangerous Londition
can be imputed to a land possessor is through evidence that the Londition pelsisted
over a long enough period of time that the owner should have become aware at it
through the exercise of reasonable eare But in order to establish notice through a
recurring condition the recurring condition must occur prior to the incident at
issue 63
1133 The Court finds Service sufficiently established that the problem with the awning persisted
tor a significant enough period of time that IPA was put on constructive notice and should have
become aware of it through the exercise of reasonable caie The conflicting testimonies in the
record and the terms of the Lease agreement itself show that IPA has not met its burden of
demonstrating that there is no genuine issue of any material fact and that it is entitled tojudgment
d3 a matter of law (’9 IPA did not sufficiently introduce uncontroverted evidence that the defect
could not have been discovered even through reasonable inspection ”7" Given its circumstances,
the instant case presents a perfect example of what the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands has
opined as one in which the determination of negligence should be made by a jury instead of a
single judge at summary judgment 7‘
V CONCLUSION
1134 Upon review at the patties pleadings exhibits and all other reasonable inferences from
the evidence in the light most favorable to Service the Court finds that there exists a genuine
dispute as to certain material facts concerning (1) responsibility to repair and maintain the awning
in question and (2) whether IPA had Constructive notice 0fthe awning s dangerous condition
Aeeordingly it is hereby
ORDERED that Isidor Paiewonsky 5 Motion for Summary Judgment which was filed
on lanuary 11 2020 is DENIED and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff‘s Second Supplemental Request for Ruling Re Summary
Judgment filed on August 9 2021 is DENIED as moot and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff‘s Third Request for Ruling Re Summary Judgment filed on
October 15 2021 is DFNIED as moot and it is further
“X Auburn at 952 (citing Muham'y v JC Penna} (a 377 P 2d 66.: 673 (NM 1962) Muchada 1t 39: (citations
omitted)
“" I11
7" Aubum at n 2
7' Rvmer v Kmart tarp
68 VI 571 576 (V l 2018)
Elizabeth Service v Isidnr P{uewmlsky ASMIL'HIEY, Inc 2022 VI Super 8U
Case No ST 2016 CV 00597
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 13 0113
ORDERED that a copy of this Memmandum Opinion and Order shall directed to
counsel of record
7
DATED January 28 2022 DWW 22% W0
DENISE M RANCOIS
Judge of the Superior Court 01 the Virgin Islands
ATTEST
TAMARA CHARLFS
Clerk ofthe Court
BY %M\0u&§ m £213,
QM LAT CAMACHO
Conn Clerk Supervisor / /