USVI Public Records

Document text

"/ " .. ,~ - ~ , . ; .. I I: " il il " " 'I I, II I I If I' II r II I , i I I I I II I I I ,I I I I. I \! o HI THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE VIP.GIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX: CHRISTIANSTED ANGEL AYALA, vs. Plaintiff ) ) ) ) ) GOVERNHENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS l Defendant ) ) ---------------------------) CIVIL NO. 354/77 ACTION FOR DAMAGES , I ME~IORANDml OPINION AND OR~ER , DEREK M. HODGE, ESQUIRE Hodge & Sheen 46-47 Company Street Christiansted, St. Croix For Plaintiff RODERICK Q. LAWRENCE, ESQUIRE Asst. Attorney General Department of Lal. P.O. Box 280 St. Thomas, V.I. For Defendant RAYMOND L. FINCH, Judge This matter came on for trial after which the Court .. found ~or the plaintiff and awarded compensatory damages. The Court withheld award of the prayed for punitive damages pend- ing receipt of memoranda by the parties hereto. The facts are as the plaintiff re,cited them in his post- trial memorandum and they are reproduced here with minor modi- fication. On March 15, 1977, plaintiff was a patient at the Charles Harwood Memorial Hospital, Christiansted, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, and was admitted on the medical ward. On March 14, 1977, at approximately 7:00 p.m., one Francisco Soto had been admitted also to the medical ward. This admis- sion was made by Dr. Albert Clairmont. Soto had been arrested _ _ ..... :::E:O:..- - _ . ' -~~...,.,.......,-- \ • , _- . t · ; i , I' ,I ,i ,I 'I t! 'i ,I ,j " I' I Ii I II I I 1 I I 1\ Ii o Nemorandum Opinion & Order Ayala vs. Govern~ent pursuant to a ,",arrant issued by the Territorial Court for the purpose of being examined by a psychiatrist. Throughout the day of March 15, Soto had been permitted to ' \~ander about the hospital notwithstanding a warning con- veyed by Mrs. Earl Roebuck to hospital personnel ,that he, Soto, had been acting strangely. At approximate ly 3:00 p.m. on the same day Soto assaulted plaintiff by attempting to strangle him and \~as restraine d by hospital attendants., Instead of seeking immediate assistance from police or otherwise restrain- ing Soto's freedom of movement, he was r e lease d and permitted to roam about freely. Fiftee n minutes later, Soto returned to plaintiff's room with a pickaxe and again assaulted plaintiff. Hospital attendants again came to the plaintiff's rescue. H~wever, Soto's movement was never restricted and he, relish- ing the opportunity, went to the hospital's kitchen, armed himself with a knife and stabbed yet another patient. The question before the court is \.;hether the Government of the Virgin Islands may be liable for punitive damages. As an initial impression the facts appear to be very favorable to the plaintiff. However, when read in light of §309 of the Restatement of Torts, the possibilities of recovery for puni- tive damages wane. This section allows an award of punitive damages only if: (al the principal authorized the doing and the manner of the act, or (bl the agent was unfit and the principal was reckless in employing him, or (cl the agent was employed in a managerial capacity and was acting within the scope of employment, or (dl the employer or a manager of the employer satisfied or approved the act. ,. ~ ,. ,. 1' .. j I I, 1 II 'I II Nemorandum Opinion and Order Ayala vs. Government Counsel for the plaintiff and the government have cited numerous cases for their positions. An analysis of the plain- tiff's position in light of the above quoted section of the Re- statement must fail. I cannot as a matter of fact find that the government authorized the doing and the manner of the act. Neither can I find as a matter of fact that the government was reckless in employing the hospital attendants who admitted or took care of ~~. Ayala; nor can I find that- the hospital at- tendants were acting in a managerial capacity and also, were acting \~ithin the scope of their employment. Certainly, the plaintiff does not contend thqt the hospital authorities ap- proved the act. I invite counsel's attention also to Mathurin \ \ -I I et al. vs. Government, 12 V.I. 23; Smith vs. District of Colum- bia, D.C. App. , 336 A.2d 831 (1975); Lauer vs. YNCA of Honolulu, 557 P.2d 1334 (Ha\~aii, 1976); Dawkins vs. City of Los Angeles, 136 Cal. Rptr. 882, P.2d. (1977). In view of the foregoing, the plaintiff's claim for puni- tive damages will be disallowed. DATED: February 1978 l ' &:--!,,,- ,A~~ (' RaYm6nd L. Finch, Judge "" . . ....... ~ .~ " .... . . '; ~. ..' -::-" .~ :. • ... " • _ ...... .. • .t ' •