Torchin v. Blue Shore Grill, LLC

4 Citing cases

  1. Holbert v. Dunn

    Civil No. 2012-44 (D.V.I. Mar. 6, 2014)

    "To state a claim for negligence in the Virgin Islands, a plaintiff must allege (1) a duty; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) causation; and (4) damages." Torchin v. Blue Shore Grill, LLC, 2011-115, 2012 WL 3764059 (D.V.I. Aug. 30, 2012) (citing Matosv. Nextran, Inc., 2009 WL 2477516, at *5 (D.V.I. Aug. 10, 2009) and Restatement (Second) of Torts § 281 (1965)). In the Virgin Islands:

  2. M&N Aviation, Inc. v. United Parcel Serv.

    Civil Action No. 2010-083 (D.V.I. Sep. 23, 2013)

    To establish negligence under Virgin Islands law, a plaintiff must demonstrate "(1) a duty; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) causation; and (4) damages." Josse v. United States, 2013 WL 152170, at *2 (D.V.I. Jan. 11, 2013) (citing Torchin v. Blue Shore Grill, LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123491, at *7-*8 (D.V.I. Aug. 30, 2012)). '"Credibility determinations are the unique province of a fact finder,'" Hoggard v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2005 WL 6786727, at *1 (3d Cir. Dec. 21, 2005) (quoting Scully v. U.S. WATS, 238 F.3d 497, 506 (3d Cir. 2001)), and "a jury may rationally reject even uncontradicted testimony which it finds unconvincing."

  3. Holbert v. Dunn

    Civil No. 2012-44 (D.V.I. Feb. 12, 2013)   Cited 1 times

    Although a number of states have dram shop acts authorizing civil damage actions against tavern owners for the tortious acts of their intoxicated patrons, the Virgins Islands has no such statute. Barrett v. Henrys, 56 V.I. 75, 79 (V.I. Super. Ct. 2012); Torchin v. Blue Shore Grill, LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123491, at *8 (D.V.I. Aug. 30, 2012). Furthermore, there is no restatement provision on point.

  4. Josse v. United States

    Civil Action No. 2011-013 (D.V.I. Jan. 11, 2013)   Cited 9 times

    To state a claim for negligence under Virgin Islands law, a plaintiff must allege: (1) a duty; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) causation; and (4) damages. Torchin v. Blue Shore Grill, LLC, No. 2011-115, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123491, *7-8 (D.V.I. Aug. 30, 2012) (citing Matos v.Nextran, Inc., 52 V.I. 676 (2009), and RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 281 (1965)); Velazquez v. Am. Airlines, No. 2010/90, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92755, *4 (D.V.I. Aug. 18, 2011) (citing same). For a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must "offer enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face," and the Court must consider "whether the complaint 'contain[s] either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain recovery under some viable legal theory.'" Torchin, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123491 at *4 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 562, 570).