VI Update

USVI Public Records

A VI Update Project · Brian LoudenThe territory’s public record — kept public.

Olric Carrington v. Winston Davis et al, SX-1982-CV-686 (V.I. 1982) [unpublished]

Collection
Courts
Sub-shelf
superior.vicourts.org
Kind
Court Record
Island
St. Croix
Date
1982-10-21
Pages
2
Text
OCR Text

Summar of Tidgneat iW M70G Ngen Py aetien en es — - = ue Tt ee or ne ge re ren IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX: AT FREDERIKSTED OLRIC CARRINGTON, Plainitft CIVIL NO. 686/1982 ACTION FOR DAMAGES vs. WINSTON. DAVIS and ISLAND FURNITURE HOUSE OF ST. CROIX, INCORPORATED, Defendants ALLAN A. CHRISTIAN, ESQUIRE 35 Prince Street P. O. Box 1577 Frederiksted, St. Croix U.S. Virgin Islands 00840 (Attornry for the Plaintiff) GEORGE S. ELTMAN, ESQUIRE 7 King Street P. O. Box 3009 Christiansted, St. Croix U.S. Virgin Islands 00820 (Attorney for the Defendants) PETERSEN, Judge MEMORANDUM OPINION Pen nmO-/ , L982 The complaint in this action alleges that the Defendant operated a vehicle owned by his employer, while in the scope of his employment, in a reckless and negligent manner and caused it to collide into fhe rear of Plaintiff's vehicle, resulting in Plaintiff's injury. The Plaintiff has moved for Summary Judgment, claiming that the deposition of the Defendant, and all other pleadings filed herein show Tha there is no issue as to the Defendant's liability. …

Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works

Original source: https://superior.vicourts.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12810747/File/Opinions/Archive/Carrington%20v.%20Davis%20(ERP).pdf

SHA-256 21c4faca127d2f670f15dcd62d634c4927acc22628a9bf7a5bcd473dccf1e594

Re-using this document

edicts of government — judicial opinions are not copyrightable by anyone. NOT 17 USC 105 (territorial court, not federal) and NOT 'rights unstated'.

Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.

Archive identifier LF-21c4faca127d

Document text

Summar of Tidgneat iW M70G Ngen Py aetien en es — - = ue Tt ee or ne ge re ren IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX: AT FREDERIKSTED OLRIC CARRINGTON, Plainitft CIVIL NO. 686/1982 ACTION FOR DAMAGES vs. WINSTON. DAVIS and ISLAND FURNITURE HOUSE OF ST. CROIX, INCORPORATED, Defendants ALLAN A. CHRISTIAN, ESQUIRE 35 Prince Street P. O. Box 1577 Frederiksted, St. Croix U.S. Virgin Islands 00840 (Attornry for the Plaintiff) GEORGE S. ELTMAN, ESQUIRE 7 King Street P. O. Box 3009 Christiansted, St. Croix U.S. Virgin Islands 00820 (Attorney for the Defendants) PETERSEN, Judge MEMORANDUM OPINION Pen nmO-/ , L982 The complaint in this action alleges that the Defendant operated a vehicle owned by his employer, while in the scope of his employment, in a reckless and negligent manner and caused it to collide into fhe rear of Plaintiff's vehicle, resulting in Plaintiff's injury. The Plaintiff has moved for Summary Judgment, claiming that the deposition of the Defendant, and all other pleadings filed herein show Tha there is no issue as to the Defendant's liability. The Defendant opposes this motion arguing that there is a genuine issue of fact as to the Defendant's negligence. An order granting Summary Judgment in favor of a moving party is proper only when it is clear that there are no genuine issues of material fact to be resolved in the case. F.R.C.P. Rule 56, 5 V.I.C. App.I Rule 56. As is stated in 10 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Civil, Section 2729 (1973), “a motion for summary judgment under Rule CARRINGTON vs. DAVIS and ISLAND FURNITURE HOUSE CIVIL NO. 686/1982 ACTION FOR DAMAGES 56 oes is not commonly interposed, and even less frequently granted, in negligence actions ...." Negligence is the failure to act as an ordinarily prudent person would act under the same or Similar circumstances. As the concepts of negligence and reasonableness are elusive, and the readonable person | full of all the standard usually requires a analysis underlying facts and considired circumstances, Summary Judgment is generally inappropriate. After due consideration herein this Court concludes that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment must be DENIED. = CO emg EILEEN R. PETERSEN, Judge 1 : et