NOT FOR PUBLICATION



IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

DIVISION OF ST. CROIX



DENISE DANIEL,

Plaintiff, | SX-08-CV-595



VS. ACTION FOR DAMAGES



TURNER ST. CROIX MAINTENANCE, INC,



Defendant.



JURY TRIAL DEMANDED



MEMORANDUM OPINION



THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Turner St. Croix Maintenance, Inc.’s

(hereinafter “Defendant” or “Turner”) Motion for Summary Judgment (hereinafter “Motion’)

filed on June 9, 2011. Plaintiff Denise Daniel (hereinafter, “Plaintiff or “Daniel”) filed an

opposition (hereinafter “Opposition’”) on July 1, 2011. Turner filed a reply (hereinafter “Reply”)

on July 28, 2011 and a Request for Ruling on June 9, 2016. For the following reasons, the Court

will deny Turner’s Motion.



BACKGROUND



Daniel was employed at HOVENSA as a C Operator in the East Power Utilities Unit.

CSOF 41. On August 8, 2008, Turner installed a temporary cargo hose for a hard type drain line

that was being repaired at HOVENSA’s request.! The installation of the temporary cargo hose



was completed the same day it was installed,* and Turner’s job ended.° “After the installation



' CSOF 493, 6; SOF $6; Def’s Ex. 3.; Denise Daniel Affidavit 419.



? Turner’s Statement of Material Facts states that “the work was completed within a few days.” SOF 43. However,

Saul Hernandez’s Declarations states that “the installation of the temporary cargo hose was completed on or about

the date it was started, which was August 8, 2008.” Def’s Ex. 3. This discrepancy is not material to the

determination of whether or not summary judgment should be granted.



3 Def’s Ex. 3.

Daniel vs. Turner St. Croix Maintenance, Inc.

SX-08-CV-595



MEMORANDUM OPINION



Page 2 of 5



was complete, Turner no longer worked in the area." “ On August 29, 2008, a permit was issued

to replace the check valve on P-3332-B. While in the process of conducting the work, the

HOVENSA Maintenance workers removed the barricade tape and did not notify operations of

the removal of the tape.’ Subsequently, “ta sudden surge in the cargo hose caused the unsecured

hose to lift out of the trench spraying hot condensate.”® While making her rounds in the unit,

Daniel was sprayed with the hot condensate and suffered second-degree thermal burns to her

lower leg.’ On December 5, 2008, Daniel filed a negligence claim against Turner. Turner moves

for summary judgment against Daniel.

STANDARD OF REVIEW



“Summary judgment is a drastic remedy [and] should be granted only when the

pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no

genuine issue as to any material fact.”* Turner, the moving party will prevail on a motion for

summary judgment where the record shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and

that Turner is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” As to materiality, “only those facts that

might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of



summary judgment.”!°



“IT]Jo survive summary judgment, Daniel, the nonmoving party’s evidence must amount



to more than a scintilla, but may amount to less (in the evaluation of the court) than a



4 Def.’s Ex. 3.



> Def.’s Ex. 2; Safety Incident Overview dated August 29, 2008.



° CSOF 43; SOF 45; Safety Incident Overview dated August 29, 2008.



7 CSOF 43; SOF at |; Def.’s Ex. 2. Denise Daniel Affidavit 99.



8 See Alexander v. Alexander, No. 2016-0012, 2016 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 35, at *9 (V.1. Sep. 22, 2016) (quoting

Machado v. Yacht Haven US V1, LLC. 61 V.E. 373, 379-80 (2014).



° See Williams v. United Corp., 50 V.1.191, 194 (V.E. 2008).



'0 7d. at 195 (citations omitted).

Daniel vs. Turner St. Croix Maintenance, Inc.

SX-08-CV-595



MEMORANDUM OPINION



Page 3 of 5



preponderance.”'’ Daniel, the nonmoving party then has the burden of “set[ting] out specific

facts showing a genuine issue for trial.” '? But Daniel “may not rest upon mere allegations [and]

must present actual evidence showing a genuine issue for trial.”!’ The Court must view all

inferences from the evidence in the light most favorable to Daniel and take her conflicting

allegations as true if properly supported.!*

DISCUSSION



Turner argues that summary judgment should be granted against Daniel because

“discovery has closed and there is no proof of record that [Turner] was negligent” and the

negligent acts were by HOVENSA personnel.” Motion at 3, Daniel opposes summary judgment

because “the evidence reveals a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Turner negligently

failed to secure the temporary cargo hose when it installed it, which caused the hose to rise out of

the pit and soak Plaintiff with burning steam.” Opp’n at 9. The question presented is whether

summary judgment should be granted against Daniel. The crux of the issue is whether there is a

genuine issue of material fact as to whether Turner's negligence caused Daniel’s injury.



In Machado, the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands (hereinafter “Supreme Court”) held

that “the foundational elements of negligence—(1) a Jegal duty of care to the plaintiff, (2) a

breach of that duty of care by the defendant (3) constituting the factual and legal cause of (4)

damages to the plaintiff— are so widely accepted and fundamental to the practice of law in the



Virgin Islands and every other United States jurisdiction that maintaining these elements is



Id.



3 See Machado, 61 V.1. at 379.



'4 See Williams, 50 V.1. at 195 ; see also Perez v. Ritz-Carlton (Virgin Islands}, Inc., 59 V.1, 522, 527; Joseph vy,

Hess Oil V1. Corp., 54 V. 1. 657, 668 (V.I. 2011).

Daniel vs. Turner St. Croix Maintenance, Inc.

SX-08-CV-595



MEMORANDUM OPINION



Page 4 of 5



unquestionably the soundest rule for the Virgin Islands.”’* Daniel has the burden of proving each

and every element of the claim of negligence by a preponderance of the evidence.!°



In the matter sub judice, the heart of the analysis goes to the element of causation—

whether Turner's negligence or HOVENSA’s negligence caused Daniel’s injury. Therefore, the

court need not conduct a magnum opus analyzing the other elements. The analysis will be limited

to whether there is a genuine issue of material fact as to who caused Daniel's injury.



To establish “causation,” Daniel must demonstrate both cause in fact and proximate

cause. '”In order for the negligent act to be regarded as the cause in fact of the injury, it must be

shown that the injury would not have occurred but for the act.”!®



In the case at bar, Daniel asserts that her “burn and related injuries and damages were

caused by Defendant's negligence to include but not to be limited to Turner St. Croix

Maintenance Inc. improperly running a temporary line’ in July 2008 to a sump drain without

properly securing the line and properly warning of its dangerous condition among the acts of

negligence.” Compl. J 5. However, the record reflects that Daniels injuries could have been

caused by the negligence of HOVENSA’s maintenance staff. After Turner completed the

installation of the temporary hose, HOVENSA’s maintenance crew “installed a pump in the area

of the temporary hose termination.” SOF 4. “The work installing the pump was done by

HOVENSA personnel.” SOF 95. “The temporary posts, red barricade tape, and weights securing



the temporary hose were temporarily removed to provide access for forklift.” Id. As a result,



'5 61 VL. at 380.



'© See Dazle v. Church of God of Prophecy for the VL, Inc.. 20)1 VL. LEXIS 18. *6 (V.1. Super. Ct. Mar. 21. 2014)

7 See Brady v. Cintron, 55 V1. 802, 823 (2011). See also Adams v. N. W. Co., Inc., 63 V.1. 427, 442 (Super. Ct.

2015).



18 Jd. at 823-24.

Daniel vs. Turner St. Croix Maintenance, Inc.

SX-08-CV-595



MEMORANDUM OPINION



Page 5 of 5



“when there was a surge through the temporary line, its termination in the trough was not

sufficiently secured to prevent movement.” Id.



Upon review of the motions, exhibits, and affidavits, the Court finds that there is a

genuine dispute as to whether Daniel’s injuries were caused by Turner’s negligent installation of

the temporary hose or whether Daniel’s injuries were cause by the negligence of HOVENSA's

maintenance personnel when they removed the temporary hose and barricade without informing

operations. The Supreme Court “has consistently favored —- wherever possible — the

adjudication of negligence cases by a jury ... instead of by a single judge at summary

judgment.”!’ This Court finds no reason to disturb this precedent. Daniel has satisfied her burden

of showing that there is a genuine issue as to whether her injuries were caused by the negligence

of Turner or HOVENSA.



CONCLUSION



Based on the foregoing analysis, Turner's motion for summary judgment will be denied.

There is a genuine issue as to whether Turner or HOVENSA’s negligence caused Daniel’s

injury. Ergo, Turner is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Court will issue an Order



consistent with this Memorandum Opinion.



DATED this / 7 day of March, 2017.



ATTEST: CS LA a )



Estrella George /HAROLD W. L. WILLOCKS

zg Clerk of the Court Administrative Judge of the Superior Court



Dated: 3/2, W/, Z



19 See Machado, 61 V.1. at 399.