USVI Public Records

Document text

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX Tropical Shipping Construction Company, ) LTD. Petitioner ) CASENO. SX-11-SM- 3&0 ) V ) ACTION FOR DEBT , ) James D. Walton, ) Respondent. ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Review of a Magistrate Order entered on July 15, 2010. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On June 21 2010, Respondent James D. Walton (hereinafter “Respondent”) filed a small claims action for debt. Respondent hired Tropical Shipping (hereinafter “Petitioner”) to transport a trailer and personal items including tools and fishing equipment from West Palm Beach Florida to St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. According to the Bill of Lading, the Petitioner took possession of the property on February 18, 2010 and it remained in their possession for approximately two weeks. Upon delivery, the Respondent discovered damage to the trailer including broken; taillights, axle, frame, and fender totaling between $2,365.00 and $2,110.00 in damages. According to testimony by the Respondent, upon receipt, the trailer was immobile and required towing to storage. Petitioner filed a formal complaint with the Petitioner but the claim was denied. This matter was heard before the Magistrate on June 13, 2010. Parties appeared personally and were ready to proceed. At the hearing, a representative for the Petitioner testified Tropical Shipping v. James D. Walton SX-10-SM-360 ACTION FOR DEBT Order Affirming Magistrate’s Decision that the Respondent’s trailer was not damaged when the Petitioner took possession in West Palm Beach, Florida. As further proof, the Respondent produced photos of the trailer during transport in the Petitioner’s Florida facility. The photo illustrated that at the time the trailer was in the Petitioner’s possession there was no visible damage. The Respondent then entered into evidence photos taken upon delivery of the trailer, which illustrated noticeable damage to the trailer. At the hearing, the Petitioner testified that although the trailer was not damaged when Tropical took possession any damage sustained was the responsibility of the Respondent because the trailer was not properly packed for ocean transport. The Court then inquired, ‘‘[djid he sign something saying if it’s damaged during transport and if it is later determined that it was too heavy, that he is liable?” To which the Petitioner responded “No. No, he did not. I don’t think he did.” The Court then inquired, “did he sign anything saying that while it’s in your possession, he’s liable?” To which the Petitioner replied “no”. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Magistrate entered judgment in favor of Respondent and against Petitioner awarding a judgment for $2,355.00. The Petitioner filed a timely request for review on July 20, 2010. The Respondent did not file a reply. DISCUSSION In its brief, the Petitioner argues that the Court erred in awarding judgment without considering the Bill of Lading and the terms included on the back of the document. Specifically, the Bill of Lading required the application of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, which limited the Plaintiffs award of Damages to $500.00. Under Rule 322.3(b) of the Virgin Islands Superior Court Rules, “Factual determination is to be reviewed for clear error.” Further, under Rule 322.3(a) if the Virgin Islands Superior Court Rules “the trial judge shall review the record as developed before the magistrate, which Tropical Shipping v. James D. Walton SX-10-SM-360 ACTION FOR DEBT Order Affirming Magistrate’s Decision shall include: the exhibits and other evidence admitted before the magistrate, the transcript of proceedings . . .” Clear error is a very deferential standard; an appellate court should only reverse a factual determination as being clearly erroneous if it is “ ‘completely devoid of minimum evidentiary support or ... bears no rational relationship to the supportive evidentiary data.’ ” Matter of Estate of Small, 2012 WL 4077375 *7 (V.L, 2012) (quoting Rainey v. Herman, 55 V.1. 875, 880 (V.I. 2011). The Petitioner’s argument is based on the applicability of the Bill of Lading to the Respondent. However, no evidence was presented at the hearing binding the Respondent to the Bill of Lading. The Bill of Lading present to the Magistrate bore no signature from either party. Although the document does limit liability and damages there is no evidence that the Respondent or the Petitioner agreed to the terms of the document. In order to clarify this issue, the Magistrate specifically inquired as to whether the Respondent signed any document limiting the liability of the Petitioner while the trailer was in their possession. The Petitioner responded “no” to both inquiries. A review of the matter for “clear error” requires this Court to determine if the evidence presented to the finder of fact supports the final decision rendered. After a review of the record, this Court finds that the evidence supports the Magistrates decision. Although the Petitioner would like to apply the terms of the Bill of Lading, the record and evidence presented does not show that the Respondent agreed to the limited liability included on the Bill of Lading. Further, the Petitioner agreed that he did not sign any document agreeing to any limitation of the liability of the Petitioner. The representative of the Petitioner also admitted under oath that the trailer was damaged while in Tropical’s possession. Tropical Shipping v. James D. Walton SX-10-SM-360 ACTION FOR DEBT Order Affirming Magistrate’s Decision The award for damages to the Respondent trailer revolved around factual findings that rest with the Magistrate who is in the best position to make such determination in so much as the evidence and facts are presented before her court. Accordingly, this Court will not disturb such determinations of facts unless the record evidences clear error pursuant to Rule 322.3(b)(1) of the Rules of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands. Nothing in the record rises to the level of clear error. CONCLUSION Upon review of the record, this Court finds that, pursuant to Rule 322.3(b) of the Rules of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, the factual determinations of the Magistrate are not clearly erroneous. The Court finds no error in the Magistrate's finding that Respondent was entitled to payment of $2,355.00. Therefore, the Court will affirm the judgment of the Magistrate Division. ORDERED that the Magistrate’s Order is AFFIRMED. It is further ORDERED that a copy of the Order shall be served on the parties. DONE SO AND ORDERED this IS Vay of May 2013. “HAROLD W.L. AX GAPS Judge of the Superior Court ATTEST: VENETIA H. VELAZQUEZ, ESQ. Clerk of the Court ps si Clerk Supe isor \ Date: