In a jurisdiction considered to be very ‘plaintiff-friendly,’ there are still provisions of the law in which defendants can find some comfort. One such provision is the damages cap in auto accident cases. The provision, enacted by the Legislature in 1999 limits the amount of non-economic damages that a plaintiff can receive when bringing suit over a motor vehicle accident. It states:
(a) The total amount recoverable for non-economic damages for any injury to a person in an action arising out of a motor vehicle accident may not exceed $100,000; provided, however, that this limitation shall not apply upon a finding of gross negligence or willful conduct.
(b) For the purposes of this section, non-economic damages include:
(1) pain and suffering;
(2) physical impairment;
(3) disfigurement; and
(4) other not-pecuniary damages recoverable under the tort laws of this Territory.
20 V.I.C. § 555.
Obviously, a rear-ender on Main Street is going to fall under the cap. However, the statute does not explicitly limit itself to automobiles or public roadways. With creative application of the provision, the damages available to plaintiffs in a wide range of cases can be significantly limited. This office has been successful in asserting the application of Section 555 in cases which might, at first glance, be seen as something other than a “motor vehicle accident.” One of the things that makes this possible is a wide-ranging definition of “motor vehicle,” which the V.I. Code defines as:
all vehicles propelled by power other than muscular, except those running upon rails or tracks, road rollers, tractors, and self-propelled plows and golf carts used solely for recreational purposes on golf courses and not on public roads or highways
20 V.I.C. § 101.
In Allen v. Crown Bay Marina, the plaintiff filed suit seeking damages for injuries sustained when he was struck by a golf cart used by maintenance employees on the property of a local marina. This office filed a motion with the Court seeking to limit evidence of non-economic damages on the basis of Section 555. The plaintiff opposed the imposition of the damages cap, arguing that the motor vehicle code, of which the cap is a part, only applied to “public roads or highways,” and that the golf cart, which was utilized only on marina property, was not a motor vehicle that fell within the definition of the Code. The defense prevailed on the question, with the Superior Court ruling that the cap applied.
Reading § 101 in the most straightforward and natural manner, the Court finds that Defendants’ motorized cart does not fall under the exception created in the statute. Accordingly, the Court agrees with the Defendants’ contention that the motorized cart in question falls within the definition of a motor vehicle under § 101. Therefore, § 555 is applicable in this action, and non-economic damages shall be limited to Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00) in accordance with the terms of the statute.
Another unique application of the damages cap occurred in Lewis v. CULUSVI, Inc. The minor plaintiff collided with a forklift that was operating inside a St. Croix store. The plaintiff sued for damages and on behalf of the defendant, we sought to apply the damages cap to the case, arguing that the collision with the forklift was a ‘motor vehicle accident.’ The forklift, the motion argued, was within Section 101’s definition of ‘motor vehicle’ in that it was not powered by muscle, did not run or rails or tracks, and was not a road roller, tractor, plow, or recreational golf cart. The Plaintiff opposed application of the statute – again insisting that the statute only applied to vehicles designed to transport people on public roadways.
Looking to the plain language of the statute, the trial court sided with the defendant and agreed that the forklift fell within the plain meaning of the statute. Further, the opinion concluded, the Code addressed many types of vehicles which were illegal to operate on public roadways and found this to be an indication that motor vehicle accidents which occurred outside of public roads also fell under the provisions of the Statute.
These types of applications are possible only when a thorough knowledge of local law is combined with a willingness to examine a case ‘outside-the-box.’ The result, in both instances, was a shift in the complexion of the case, allowing the defendant and their insurer to put a more certain dollar amount on the damages available to the plaintiff. With the uncertainty over pain and suffering resolved, the focus can turn to more easily quantifiable aspects of damages, such as medical costs and wage loss.
If you have any questions about the application of Section 555, please contact Mark Wilczynski at 340-774-4547 or mark@usvilaw.com.