Claxton v. Vick
| Decision Date | 11 February 1981 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 1980-121 |
| Citation | 18 V.I. 337 |
| Parties | BARBARA CLAXTON and ALVIN CLAXTON, Plaintiffs v. LOUIS V. VICK and GORDON M. JONES, d/b/a AMERICAN CARPET SERVICE, ST. CROIX-BY-THE-SEA, a joint venture; ST. CROIX HOTEL CORPORATION, and BUCK ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (formerly known as PRINAIR HOTEL CORPORATION OF ST. CROIX), Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Virgin Islands |
Motions for summary judgment by members of a joint venture in a tort action brought by an employee of the joint venture arising out of injuries sustained when the employee tripped on a piece of loose carpeting in the course of her employment, for which the employee had received an award of workmen's compensation. The District Court, Christian, Chief Judge, held that since the workmen's compensation policy carried by the joint venture inured to the benefit of the members of the joint venture and plaintiff's spouse could not sue for loss of consortium and services, the motions would be granted.JEFFREY RESNICK, ESQ. (JAMES & RESNICK), Christiansted, St. Croix, V.I., for plaintiffs
JOEL HOLT, ESQ., Christiansted, St. Croix, V.I., for plaintiffs
DAVID O'BRIEN, ESQ. (O'BRIEN & MOORE), Christiansted, St. Croix, V.I., for defendant American Carpet Service
RICHARD E. DALEY, ESQ. (ISHERWOOD, BARNARD & DIEHM), Christiansted, St. Croix, V.I., for defendant St. Croix Hotel Corporation
FREDERICK WATTS, ESQ. (LOUD, WATTS & MURNAN), St. Thomas, V.I., for defendant Buck Island Development Corporation
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the Court on the motions for summary judgment of defendants St. Croix Hotel Corporation and Buck Island Development Corporation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Their motions will be granted.
On March 19, 1979, Barbara Claxton tripped on a piece of loose carpeting at St. Croix By-The-Sea Hotel, and as a result, fell and sustained various alleged injuries. On the date of the accident, Mrs. Claxton was employed as head housekeeper for the St. Croix By-The-Sea Hotel, a joint venture comprised of St. Croix Hotel Corporation and Buck Island Development Corporation.
[1, 2] Defendants St. Croix Hotel Corporation and Buck Island Development Corporation argue that the case against them should be dismissed, contending that under the Virgin Islands Workmen's Compensation statute all actions against an insured employer are barred if the employee's injuries are compensable. 24 V.I.C. § 284.1 They also note that although the joint venture entity, St. Croix By-The-Sea Hotel, was the employing unit, all members of the joint venture are considered to be the "employer" for the purposes of workmen's compensation. The workmen's compensation insurance policy carried by St. Croix Hotel Corporation inures to the benefit ofboth the joint venture entity and its individual members, and thus bars tort suits against all entities for compensable injuries. See, e.g., Conner v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 599 P.2d 247, 249 (Ariz. 1979); Insurance Co. of North America v. Dep't. of Industry, 173 N.W.2d 192 (Wis. 1970). Therefore, the defendants conclude, as "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact," Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), summary judgment in their favor would be appropriate, plaintiff Barbara Claxton having received workmen's compensation awards for her injuries.
[3] The plaintiffs oppose the granting of summary judgment on two grounds. Firstly, they argue that there is a genuine issue of fact as to whether the joint venture controlled the premises of St. Croix By-The-Sea Hotel at the time of the alleged accident. As proof of this contention, the plaintiffs have offered an affidavit by plaintiff Barbara Claxton which states that she thinks that the joint venture transferred control of the St. Croix By-The-Sea Hotel prior to her alleged injury, but that she wasn't sure of the fact. However, subsequent to the submission of the affidavit, the defendants provided the Court with a copy of the "Agreement with Respect to Termination of Joint Venture." That agreement, dated March 21, 1979, states that the termination date for the joint venture was to be at midnight, March 31,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chinnery v. Government of Virgin Islands
...of exclusive remedy provisions, such as WCA Sec. 284(a), the employer is not liable for negligence at common law. See Claxon v. Vick, 18 V.I. 337, 340 (D.V.I.1981); Tremonte v. Jersey Plastic Molders, Inc., 190 N.J.Super. 597, 600, 464 A.2d 1193, 1195 (App.Div.1983); Jett v. Dunlap, 179 Con......