Lexplug logoLexplug

Colmenares Vivas v. Sun Alliance Insurance Company

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit
807 F.2d 1102 (1986)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An entity with a nondelegable duty to maintain its premises in a safe condition for the public retains "exclusive control" over an instrumentality for the purposes of applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, even if it has contracted with a third party for maintenance and repair.


Facts:

  • On February 12, 1984, Jose Domingo Colmenares Vivas and his wife, Dilia Arreaza de Colmenares, were riding an escalator at the Luis Munoz Marin International Airport in Puerto Rico.
  • The airport is owned and operated by the Puerto Rico Ports Authority (Ports Authority).
  • The Ports Authority had a maintenance contract with Westinghouse Electric Corporation to inspect, maintain, and repair the airport's escalators.
  • While the Colmenares couple was about halfway up the escalator, the moving handrail suddenly stopped, but the steps continued to ascend.
  • The malfunction caused Mrs. Colmenares to lose her balance.
  • In the process of catching his wife to prevent her from falling, Mr. Colmenares lost his own balance and tumbled down the escalator steps, resulting in injuries.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Colmenares (plaintiffs) filed a diversity action against Sun Alliance Insurance Company, the insurer for the Puerto Rico Ports Authority, in federal district court.
  • Sun Alliance filed a third-party complaint against Westinghouse Electric Corporation, the maintenance contractor.
  • Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to sue Westinghouse directly six days before trial; the district court denied the motion.
  • At trial, after the plaintiffs presented their case, the defendants moved for a directed verdict.
  • The district court granted the defendants' renewed motion for a directed verdict, ruling that res ipsa loquitur did not apply because the 'exclusive control' element was not met.
  • The Colmenares (appellants) appealed the directed verdict to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does an airport authority retain 'exclusive control' over an escalator for the purposes of applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur when it contracts with a third party for maintenance, due to its nondelegable duty to maintain public safety?


Opinions:

Majority - Bownes

Yes. An entity with a nondelegable duty to maintain safe public facilities retains exclusive control for the purposes of res ipsa loquitur. The court reasoned that all three requirements for res ipsa loquitur under Puerto Rico law were met. First, an escalator handrail stopping while the steps continue moving is an event that ordinarily does not occur without negligence. Second, the 'exclusive control' requirement is not literal; its purpose is to ensure the defendant was ultimately responsible. The Ports Authority, as a public entity operating an airport, has a nondelegable duty to keep its facilities safe for the public, a duty it cannot shift to a contractor like Westinghouse. This nondelegable duty means the Ports Authority effectively retains exclusive control. Third, the plaintiffs did nothing to contribute to the accident. Therefore, the jury should have been allowed to infer negligence under res ipsa loquitur.


Dissenting - Torruella

No. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur should not apply because the plaintiffs failed to establish the first requirement: that the accident implies negligence. The dissent argues that the majority improperly applies common law principles to a Puerto Rican civil law case. Under Puerto Rican precedent, the mere fact that a complex piece of machinery like an escalator malfunctions does not, by itself, give rise to an inference of negligence without expert testimony explaining the cause. Simply because the handrail stopped is insufficient proof, just as a sudden lurch of a bus was held insufficient in a prior Puerto Rico Supreme Court case. The plaintiffs presented no evidence from which a jury could infer a lack of diligence or foresight by the defendants.



Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies the 'exclusive control' element of res ipsa loquitur, particularly in cases involving independent contractors and nondelegable duties. By holding that a public authority cannot delegate away its ultimate responsibility for safety, the court broadens the doctrine's applicability. This makes it easier for plaintiffs to survive motions for directed verdicts in premises liability cases where maintenance is outsourced. The ruling reinforces the public policy that entities operating public spaces bear a high and non-transferable responsibility for the safety of their invitees.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Colmenares Vivas v. Sun Alliance Insurance Company (1986) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Colmenares Vivas v. Sun Alliance Insurance Company