Martínez-Suárez v. Mansiones De Garden Hills Apartments
| Decision Date | 24 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL NO. 18-1686 (GAG) |
| Citation | 556 F.Supp.3d 1 |
| Parties | Ivelisse MARTÍNEZ-SUÁREZ, Plaintiff, v. MANSIONES DE GARDEN HILLS APARTMENTS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Juan R. Davila-Diaz, Hato Rey, PR, for Plaintiff.
Miguel G. Laffitte, Delgado & Fernandez, Jeannette M. Lopez, Oliveras & Ortiz, PSC, San Juan, PR, for Defendants.
One week after Hurricane María made landfall in Puerto Rico, Ivelisse Martínez-Suárez ("Plaintiff" or "Martínez-Suárez") woke up early in the morning before sunrise to go get gasoline at a nearby station. When leaving the apartment building where she was staying, Martínez-Suárez slipped on the last step of a staircase and fell, suffering bodily injuries.
On September 18, 2018, Plaintiff brought this action, predicated upon the Court's diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. 1332, against Mansiones de Garden Hills Apartments ("Mansiones"). Plaintiff claims that, under the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico's general tort statute, Article 1802 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, P.R. LAWS ANN. tit. 31, § 5141 ("Article 1802"), Mansiones is liable for her injuries because her fall was due to the allegedly negligent design of Mansiones’ staircase. (Docket No. 1).
During discovery, Mansiones filed a third-party complaint against MQ Contractors, Nearq Studios, and their respective unidentified insurance companies. (Docket No. 24). The third-party complaint alleges that if plaintiff's liability allegation were proven, then that the two corporations hired by Mansiones to design, construct, and supervise the stairs’ construction should also be held liable. Id. at 4. Notwithstanding, counter-claims against MQ Contractors have been stayed as a result of pending bankruptcy proceedings. (Docket No. 42).
Mansiones and Nearq Studios (collectively, "Defendants") jointly move for summary judgment arguing that Plaintiff's evidence is insufficient to establish her negligence claims under Article 1802. (Docket No 61). Namely, Defendants posit that Nearq Studios and Architect Nelson Rivera-Rodríguez ("Architect Rivera-Rodríguez") were not negligent in designing the stairs because both the design as well as the stairs complied with the applicable building codes effective at the time of the construction and since the steps, as designed, did not create a dangerous condition which could have caused Plaintiff's fall. (Docket No. 61 at 13). Further, Defendants posit that because Architect Rivera-Rodríguez complied with the design requirements as set by the applicable building codes, he did not breach his duty of care. Id. Absent a breach of their duty, Defendants argue they cannot be held liable for designing stairs with an inherently dangerous condition that would have required Mansiones to warn its residents or visitors. Id.
Defendants also posit that Martínez-Suárez pleads a premises liability claim based on negligent design, which did not encompass a claim for damages based on negligent "construction." Id. Notwithstanding, Defendants argue that the record evidence supports the conclusion that the actual construction of the stairs followed the applicable building codes. Id. at 14. Finally, Mansiones and Nearq Studio put forward that, besides the absence of a defective design, Plaintiff has failed to provide evidence to prove that the accident and her injuries were foreseeable. Id. at 15. Defendants argue that the steps were designed and constructed in an anti-slip material, that no other prior accident had occurred in those steps, and that the circumstantial evidence surrounding the accident after the passing of Hurricane María, no electricity in the area, and before sunrise, "can hardly be deemed foreseeable." Id. at 16. Consequently, Defendants petition the Court to enter judgment in their favor because the record is devoid of evidence to support Plaintiff's claims from which a reasonable jury could find breach of duty or proximate cause. Id.
In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the evidence of record supports her claim that the stairs constitute a "clear and present danger" to residents and visitors because the stairs do not coincide with Architect Rivera-Rodríguez's design plan and blueprints nor comply with the applicable building codes. (Docket No, 74 at 10). As such, she posits that Architect Rivera-Rodríguez, as the condominium's representative, was negligent in failing to supervise the construction. Id. Moreover, Martínez-Suárez advances that Architect Rivera-Rodríguez was aware that the Municipality of Guaynabo ("Municipality") was carrying out remodeling work on the sidewalk in front of Mansiones. Id. at 12. As such, Plaintiff argues Architect Rivera-Rodríguez should have made sure that the Municipality did not alter the staircase under the general standard of the "prudent and reasonable person." Id. Moreover, Plaintiff avers that Mansiones’ administration breached its duty by omission of not warning visitors about the stairs’ dangerous condition. Id. According to Plaintiff's expert testimony, the dangerous condition was that the last step, which neither matched the design plan's specifications nor complied with the applicable codes, was the proximate cause of her fall. Id. at 13. Martínez-Suárez advances that this condition can be corrected and has been known for years yet continues to exist, "provok[ing] a problem for the public." Id. Consequently, Plaintiff concludes that she has established the elements for negligence and proximate cause; hence, she has a viable tort case that warrants submission to a jury for adjudication. Id. at 14.
Defendants replied arguing that Plaintiff improperly attempts to extend the scope of her claims including ones not asserted in her Complaint. (Docket No. 83). Specifically, they advance that Plaintiff now impermissibly posits: (1) claims based on negligent construction; (2) claims based on negligent supervision of the construction project, and (3) claims against Architect Rivera-Rodríguez and Nearq Studios for his involvement as the designer of the project. (Docket No. 83 at 1-2). Moreover, Defendants argue that Plaintiff lacks evidence to support that the step adjacent to the sidewalk constituted a "clear and present danger" or that Mansiones had actual or constructive knowledge of any potentially dangerous condition on or around its premises. Id. at 2. In addition, Defendants emphasize that the sidewalk adjacent to Mansiones is under the exclusive control of the Municipality of Guaynabo pursuant to Puerto Rico law and, as such, Mansiones had no control over the sidewalk's remodeling. Id. at 3. Finally, Defendants argue that the occurrence project was an isolated incident, accompanied by the fact that the fall occurred one-week after Hurricane María. Id. at 4. This belies the existence of a "potentially dangerous condition" and that the same was not known or even foreseeable to Mansiones. Id. Plaintiff sur-replied. (Docket No. 88).1
After carefully reviewing the parties’ submissions, applicable law, record evidence, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Joint Motion for Summary Judgment at Docket No. 61.
Defendants proposed seventy uncontested facts to establish that summary judgment should be granted in their favor. (Docket No. 62). Plaintiff admitted forty-two of these facts and denied, qualified, or objected to the rest while further proposing a statement of twenty-four additional facts. (Docket No. 72). Defendants address Plaintiff's denials, qualifications, and objections and replies to the additional facts. (Docket No. 84).
A. Local Rule 56
Although, the primary purpose of Local Rule 56(b), L. CV. R. 56(b), "is to relieve the district court of any responsibility to ferret through the record to discern whether any material fact is genuinely in dispute," CMI Capital Mkt. Inv., LLC v. González-Toro, 520 F.3d 58, 62 (1st Cir. 2008), a Court "must responsibly review the record, especially the evidence upon which the statement of uncontested facts is based on, to adequately evaluate a motion for summary judgment." Reyes Caballero v. Oriental Bank, Civil No. 16-2952 (GAG), 2019 WL 6330812 at *2 (D.P.R. 2019) ; see also Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prod., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000) ().
Local Rule 56(c) instructs that "[a] party opposing a motion for summary judgment shall submit with its opposition a separate, short, and concise statement of material facts." L. CV. R. 56(c) (D.P.R. 2020). This opposing statement "shall admit, deny or qualify the facts supporting the motion for summary judgment by reference to each numbered paragraph of the moving party's statement of material facts." Id. Each denial and qualification must be supported by a record citation. Id. If a party improperly controverts the facts, Local Rule 56 allows the Court to treat the non-movants party's facts as uncontroverted. Natal Pérez v. Oriental Bank & Tr., 291 F. Supp. 3d 215, 218 (D.P.R. 2018). The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has consistently held that litigants ignore Local Rule 56 at their peril. See Cabán Hernández v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 486 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2007). The Court explained in Natal Pérez that:
The line between a properly supported qualification or denial and additional facts can be blurry. Because Local Rule 56 requires that a record citation support each qualification or denial, it can seem inevitable to proffer additional facts when doing so. But a better understanding of what constitutes a qualification or denial helps. A qualification is "[a] modification or limitation of terms or language; esp., a restriction of terms that would otherwise be interpreted broadly." Qualification , BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1436 (10th ed 2014). Simply put, a qualification must clarify a statement of fact that,...
To continue reading
Request your trial