2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-16-2008 

# S ant i ll an v . S h armouj P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-5167

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " S ant i ll an v

. S h armouj " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 837. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/837NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL U N I TED STA TES C O U RT O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N os . 06- 5167/ 07- 2952/ 07- 2953/ 07- 2954 ANT ONI O S ANT I L L AN

v. NAS S E R S HAR M OUJ a n d Z I L A S HAR M OUJ I n d i v i d u a l l y a n d d /b / a P r i n c e s s e C a s h & C a r r y a n d N A S S A R S H A R M O U J , Z IL A S H A R M O U J , S A M IR A S H A R M O U J ,

I n d i v i d u a l l y a n d d /b / a T a r g e tT i r e a n d B a t t e r y, A ppel l ant s N o. 06- 5167

__________ ANT ONI O S ANT I L L AN, A ppel l antN os . 07- 2952/ 2954 v. NAS S E R S HAR M OUJ ; Z I L A S HAR M OUJ ; S AM I RA S HAR M OUJ

__________ ANT ONI O S ANT I L L AN

v. N A S S E R S H A R M O U J; Z ILA S H A R M O U J; S A M IR A S H A R M O U J, A ppel l ant s N o. 07- 2953

____________ ( cont i nued)2 On Ap p e a l F r o m T he D i s t r i ctC our tof The V i r gi n I s l ands ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 01- cv- 00065) D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e A nne E. T hom ps on

____________ A r gued M ay6, 2008

____________ B efore: R E N D E L L , F U E N T E S and C H A G A R E S , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: J ul y16, 2008)

____________ W i l fr edo A . G ei gel [ ARGUE D] P. O . B ox 25749, G al l ow s B ay C h ristia n ste d , S t. C ro ix U ni t ed St at es V i r gi n I s l ands , 00824 C o u n se l fo r Ap

p e lla n ts N as s erShar m ouj, Zi l a Shar m oujand Sam i r a Shar m ouj K . G l enda Cam er on [ ARGUE D] L aw O ffi ce of

R ohn & C amer on 1101 K i ng St r eet , Sui t e 2 C h ristia n ste d , S t. C ro ix U ni t ed St at es V i r gi n I s l ands , 00820 C ouns el f orAppel l ee A nt oni o Sant i l l an OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge. T hi s i s an appe al fr om a j ur yver di ctw hi ch det erm i ned thatthe negl i gentact i ons of d e f e n d a n ts N a ss e r S h a rm o u j ("N a ss e r" ) a n d Z ila S h a rm o u j ("Z ila" ) a t a c o n stru c tio n siteZ i l a and N as s err ai s e a hos tof i s s ues on appea l , ar gui ng thatther e w as 1 i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o s uppor tt he j uryver di ct ; thatthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed byal l ow i ng t he j ur yt o aw ar d economi c damages t o Sant i l l an; thatSant i l l an’ s economi c and medi cal ex p erts sho u ld h av e b ee n ex clud ed ; and that the D istri ct C o u rterred b yall o w ing the ju ry t o aw ar d puni t i ve damages agai ns tN as s er . B eca us e w e fi nd al l of thes e cont ent i ons t o be w i t houtm er i t , w e nee d notaddr es s them. See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. Sal emo, 61 F. 3d 214, 2 1 6 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 5 ) ; Un i t e d S t a t e s v . M c Cr a n e , 5 7 5 F . 2 d 5 8 , 5 9 n . 2 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 7 8 ) . As we uphol d t he j ur y ’ s ver di ct , w e nee d notr eac h evi dent i aryi s s ues r ai s ed bySant i l l an on c ro ss -a p p e a l. 3 re s u lte d in s e ri o u s a n d p e rm a n e n t in ju ri e s to p la in tif

f A n to n io S a n tilla n (“ S a n tilla n ” ). T he cons t ruct i on s i t e w as ow ned byZ i l a and ove r s een byN as s er . T he pr i nci pal i s s ues on appea l ar e: ( 1) w hethert he j ur ypr oper l yaw ar ded puni t i ve damages agai ns tZ i l a and N a ss e r, an d (2 ) w h e th e r th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rlyd e n ied c e rta in o f S a n til lan ’s r e q u e sts forcos t s . Fort he r eas ons bel ow , w e conc l ude thatthe j urycorr ect l yaw ar ded puni t i ve

1 damages agai ns tbot h Z i l a and N as s er , and w e r emand t he i s s ue of c os t s t o t he D i s t r i ct C our tforfur t hercons i der at i on. I. A s w e w r i t e onl yfort he part i es , ourr eci t at i on of the fa ct s w i l l be br i ef. N as s er w as h ir ed b yZ il a, his m o ther, t o co n stru ct a b u il d ing fo r a n ew b u sine ss, th e T arg et T ir e & B at t ery( “Tar get ”) . T he Tar getbui l di ng w as er ect ed on l and ow ned byZ i l a, w ho p ro v id e d th e f

in a n c in g f

o r th e p rojec t. Z ila p a id N a ss e r a sa lar ya n d a u th o riz e d h im to over s ee a l l as pect s of the cons t ruct i on, i ncl udi ng s afe t y , perm i tappl i cat i on, empl oym ent and pu rchasi ng ; she paid for the sup pli es and e qu i pm ent, as w el l as for the b usi ness l i cens es and perm i t s . N ei t herZ i l a norN as s erpai d forW or ker s ' C om pens at i on cover age4

fort he w or ker s hi r ed t o cons t ructt he Tar getbui l di ng. N as s erw as notl i cens ed or q u a l i f i e d a s a c o n t r a c t o rp u r s u a n tt o Vi r g i n I s l a n d s l a w. Z ila w a s a ls o th e o w n e r/ o p e ra to r o f P ri n c e s s e C a s h & C a rr y(“ P ri n c e s s e ” ), a gr ocerys t or e on the s ame pr oper t yas the new T ar getbui l di ng. She w or ked ther e 14 hour s a day , s even da y s a w eek, and w as abl e t o obs erve fi r s t hand the cons t ruct i on of the T ar getbui l di ng. Sant i l l an i s an i l l egal al i en fr om the D om i ni can Republ i c. O n J une 2, 1999, Sant i l l an fe l l and hi thi s head, r es ul t i ng i n s er i ous i nj ury . T her e ar e tw o ver s i ons of how t he ac ci dentoccurr ed. Sant i l l an s t at es thathe had be en hi r ed byN as s ert o w or k atthe cons t ruct i on s i t e s ever al day s pr i ort o t he ac ci dent . O n t he dat e i n ques t i on, he had be en in stru c ted to rid e to th e to p o f th e b u ild in g u n d e r c o n stru c tio n in a f o rk lift, w ith o u t sa f

e ty eq u ipm en t. W h il e o n the b u il d ing , h e w as a cc iden tal lyk n o ck ed o ff the ro o f b yN asse r, w ho w as m ovi ng pl yw ood w i t h t he forkl i ft . Sant i l l an fe l l tw o s t or i es headf i r s tont o a co n cre te floo r. Att r i a l , Na s s e rd i s p u t e d S a n t i l l a n ’ s s t o r y . He s t a t e d th a tS a n t i l l a n wa s a k n o wn al cohol i c w ho had s how n up att he cons t ruct i on s i t e the dayof the i nci dentl ooki ng for w o rk ; N a ss e r re f

u se d to h ire h im b e c a u se o f h is d rin k in g p ro b lem , b u t allo w e d h im to hang ar ound t he s i t e. N as s ercl ai m ed thatSant i l l an w ander ed t o t he edge of the s i t e and w a s u rin a tin g in so m e b u sh e s w h e n h e f e ll d o w n a c liff

, su sta in in g b ru ise s a n d g o in g in to a fi t . N as s erfur t hert es t i fi ed thathe pour ed a bott l e of rum on Sant i l l an t o t r yt o r evi ve5

h im , the n p u t S a n til lan in h is c a r a n d d ro v e h im to th e h o sp ital. N as s erdr opped Sant i l l an off ata l ocal hos pi t al . H e r efus ed t o i dent i fyhi m s el f, and t ol d t he emer gencyw or ker s t hatSant i l l an had be en i n a fi s t fi ghtand had then fa l l en dow n drunk i n a di t ch. I tw as det erm i ned thatSant i l l an’ s i nj ur i es i ncl uded a f r actur ed skull , dam age to hi s t em po ral and front al l ob es, a broke n sho ulder , and si x b roken ri bs. Pol i ce w er e t ol d bySant i l l an’ s cous i n t hatSant i l l an had be en w or ki ng on t he Tar get bui l di ng; di s cover ed s catt er ed t ool s and a bl oodys hi r tatthe cons t ruct i on s i t e; and found no evi dence t o s ubs t ant i at e N as s er ’ s s t orythatSant i l l an had f al l en dow n i n a di t ch. S a n t i l l a n f

i l e d s u i ta g a i n s tNa s s e ra n d Z i l a i n th e Di s t r i c to f th e Vi r g i n I s l a n d s . He al l eged thatt he ac ci dent“w as di r ect l ycaus ed bythe negl i gence of the D efe ndant s . ” (Jo in t A p p e n d ix (“ J.A .”) 2 .) H e a lso a lleg e d th a t N a ss e r p o u re d a lco h o l o n S a n til lan to “make i tappea rt hathe w as drunk; ” fl ed the hos pi t al aft erdr oppi ng Sant i l l an atthe emer gencyr oom ; “gave fal s e t es t i m ony ” t o t he pol i ce a boutw hathad occ urr ed; and gave fal s e t es t i m onyt o t he doct or s as t o how the ac ci dentoccurr ed des pi t e the fa ctthathe “knew ors houl d have know t hats i nce [ Sant i l l an] w as uncons ci ous , i tw as vi t al t o t he t r eatm entof [Sant i l l an] t hata true ac countbe gi ven. ” ( J . A . 3. ) Sant i l l an s t at ed thathe su ff ere d “p h y sical da m ag es, m ed ical ex p en ses, l o ss o f in co m e, l o ss o f c ap ac ityto ea rn i ncome, m ent al angui s h, pai n and s uffe r i ng, and l os s of enj oym entof l i fe” as a r es ul tof t he ac ci dent . I d. Fi nal l y , Sant i l l an al l eged thatthe “a ct i ons of the D efe ndant s w er e and ar e s o out r ageous and done w i t h s uch ca l l ous di s r egar d of the r i ght s and i nt er es t s of theT he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1332. W e have 2 j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. 6 P la in tif f a s to e n title th e P la in tif f to a n a w a rd o f

p u n itiv e d a m a g e s .” (J .A . 4 .) T he ca s e pr ocee ded t o t r i al . A j uryfound i n favorof Sant i l l an and a w ar ded $528, 823 i n compensa t or ydamages ( foreconomi c l os s and medi cal expens es ) , as w el l as $5 0, 00 0 in pun i t i ve d am ages ag ai nstN asser , and $1 01 , 00 0 in pun i t i ve d am ages ag ai nst Z i l a. Fol l ow i ng t he ver di ct , N as s erand Zi l a fi l ed a M ot i on forJ udgm entas a M att erof L aw or , i n t he al t ernat i ve, fora new tr i al , pur s uantt o Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e 50 and 59. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the mot i ons i n l ar ge part , butdi d rul e t o s etas i de the j ur y ’ s aw ar d of puni t i ve damages aw ar d agai ns tZ i l a. I n a s epar at e opi ni on, the D i s t r i ct C our tal s o det erm i ned thatSant i l l an s houl d notbe gr ant ed manyof the cos t s and fe es he r eques t ed. O n appea l , N as s erar gues t hatthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed bynotal s o s t r i ki ng the puni t i ve damages aw ar d agai ns thi m ; Sant i l l an cr os s - appea l s and cont ends thatthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed bys t r i ki ng t he puni t i ve damages aw ar d agai ns tZ i l a. Sant i l l an further a p p e a l s t h e D i s t r i c tC o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n t o d e n yh i s r e q u e s tf o rc e r t a i n c o s t s a n d f

e e s . We w i l l addr es s eac h i s s ue i n tur n. 2 II. Pur s uantt o V i r gi n I s l ands l aw , puni t i ve damages ar e des i gned t o “puni s h [a per s on] forhi s out r ageous conductand t o det erhi m and other s l i ke hi m fr om s i m i l arT he V i r gi n I s l ands have a dopt ed the R es t at ement s of Law as the “rul es of 3 deci s i on. ” 1 V . I . C . § 4. 7 conducti n t he futur e. ” R ES TAT EMEN T (S EC ON D ) OF T OR TS § 908 ( 1) . Puni t i ve damages 3 m ayb e a w ard ed fo r: con du ctt hat i s outr ageo us, becau se of t he d efen dan t ' s evi l m oti ve o r hi s r eckles s i ndi ffe r ence t o t he r i ght s of other s . I n as s es s i ng puni t i ve damages , the tr i erof fa ct can pr oper l ycons i dert he cha r act erof the def endant ' s act , the natur e and e xt entof t he harm t o t he pl ai nt i ff thatthe def endantcaus ed ori nt ended t o caus e and the w e a lth o f

th e d e f e n d a n t. R ES TAT EMEN T (S EC ON D ) OF T OR TS § 908( 2) . I n “det erm i ni ng the amountof puni t i ve damages , as w el l as i n deci di ng w hethertheys houl d be gi ven atal l , the tr i erof fa ctcan pr oper l ycons i dernotm er el yt he ac ti t s el f butal l the ci r cumst ance s i ncl udi ng the mot i ves of the w r ongdoer , t he r el at i ons betw een the part i es and the pr ovocat i on orw antof pr ovocat i on fort he ac t . ” I d. atcmt . e. A s a r es ul t , s uch “a w ar ds ar e the pr oductof n u m ero u s, an d so m eti m es in tang ible, fa ctors; a juryim p o sing a p u n it ive d am ag es a w ard m u st m a k e a q u a lit a tiv e a ss e ss m e n t b a se d o n a h o st o f f a c ts a n d c irc u m sta n c e s u n iq u e to t he pa r t i c ul a rc a s e be fo r e i t . ” TX O Pr od . Corp. v. A l l i a nc e Res ou r c e s Corp. , 50 9 U. S. 4 4 3 , 4 5 7 (1 9 9 3 ). We r e v i e w de novo th e ju ry ’s d e c isio n to g ra n t a p u n iti v e d a m a g e s a w a rd , as w e ll a s th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d e c is io n to s tr ik e s u c h a n a w a rd . C ooperI ndus . , I nc. v. L e a th e rm a n T o o l G ro u p , In c ., 5 3 2 U .S . 4 2 4 , 4 3 1 (2 0 0 1 ). T h e “ to u c h sto n e o f a p p e llate r evi ew of puni t i ve damages aw ar ds i s r eas onabl enes s , notexac t i tude. ” W i l l ow I nn, I nc. v.8

P u b lic S e rv ice M u t. In s. C o ., 3 9 9 F .3 d 2 2 4 , 2 3 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); se e a lso B M W o f N o rth A m e ri c a , In c . v . G o re , 5 1 7 U .S . 5 5 9 , 6 2 2 (1 9 9 6 ). F o r th e re a so n s b e lo w , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt w a s c o rre c t to u p h o ld t he j ur y ’ s deci s i on t o aw ar d puni t i ve damages agai ns tN as s er , buterr ed w hen i ts t ruck the j ur y ’ s deci s i on t o aw ar d puni t i ve damages agai ns tZ i l a. A. N as s erar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed w hen i tfai l ed t o s t r i ke the puni t i ve damages aw ar d agai ns thi m . A l t hough he ci t es t o a numberof ca s es forthe pr opos i t i on t hat“l i abi l i t yi n t hi s t ype of c as e i s s harpl yl i m i t ed t o cas es [of] part i cul ar l yegr egi ous b e h a v io r,” A p p e llan t’s B r. at 4 8 , h e p ro v id e s n o re a so n w h yth is c o u rt sh o u ld c o n sid e r h is behavi oranyt hi ng l es s t han “r eckl es s [l y ] i ndi ffe r entt o t he r i ght s of other s , ” i f not dow nr i ght“evi l . ” R ES TAT EMEN T (S EC ON D ) OF T OR TS § 908( 2) . W hen the ac ci dent occurr ed, N as s er– i ns t ead of cal l i ng an ambul ance – pl ace d Sant i l l an i n hi s car , pour ed rum overhi m , l efthi m att he emer gencyr oom door , and l i ed r epea t edl yaboutw hathad o c c u rre d , b o th to th e m e d ica l sta f f a t th e h o sp ital (w h o n e e d e d th e in f o rm a tio n in o rd e r to t r eatSant i l l an) and t o t he pol i ce ( i n or dert o coverup t he fa ctthatthe ac ci denthad o cc u rred at th e c o n stru cti o n sit e). A s the D istri ct C o u rto b serv ed , “N asse r S h arm o u j’ s at t empt s t o cover - up t he ci r cumst ance s of the ac ci dentcoul d r eas onabl ybe cons i der ed o u tr ag eo u s en o u g h to su p p o rta p u n it ive d am ag es a w ard ag ains t him . ” (J.A . 8 6 5 . ) C ons equent l y , w e fi nd thatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on t o uphol d t he j ury ’ s aw ar d of9

p u n iti v e d a m a g e s a g a in st N a ss e r w a s c o rre c t. B. O n cr os s - appea l , Sant i l l an ar gues thatthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed w hen i ts etas i de the pu nit i ve d am ages aw ard againstZ i l a. P un i t i ve d am ages can properl ybe aw arded ag ai nst an empl oy erbeca us e of a n actbyan age nti f: ( a) t he pr i nci pal ora manager i al agentauthor i zed the doi ng and the mannerof the act , or (b ) th e a g e n t w a s u n f

it an d th e p rin c ip a l o r a m a n a g e ria l ag e n t w a s re c k les s in empl oy i ng orr et ai ni ng hi m , or ( c) t he age ntw as empl oy ed i n a manager i al capa ci t yand w as act i ng i n t he s cope of empl oym ent , or (d ) th e p rin c ip a l o r a m a n a g e ria l ag e n t o f th e p rin c ip a l ra tifie d o r a p p ro v e d th e a c t. R ES TAT EMEN T (S EC ON D ) OF T OR TS § 909. T he ac tcomm i t t ed bythe age ntm us tbe “cl ear l yout r ageous t o j us t i fyt he vi car i ous i m pos i t i on” of puni t i ve damages on t he pr i nci pal orm anage r i al agent . C huyv. Phi l a. E agl es Footbal l C l ub, 595 F. 2d 1265, 1278 (3d C ir . 1 9 7 9 ). I n s t r i ki ng t he puni t i ve damages aw ar d agai ns tZ i l a, the D i s t r i ctC our tr eas oned th a t: Fi r s t , t her e w as no evi dence t o s ugges tthatD efe ndantZ i l a Sharm ouj author i zed, appr oved orr at i fi ed hers on’ s outr ageous conduct . N ext , the C our tfi nds no evi dence t hatD efe ndantZ i l a Sharm ouj w as r eckl es s i n empl oy i ng D efe ndant N a ss e r S h a rm o u

j . . . R e c k les s c o n d u c t is ‘m u c h m o re th a n m e re n e g lig e n c e : itis g ross d ev iat ion fro m w h at a rea so n ab le pe rson w o u ld d o . ’ (J.A . 8 6 5 -6 6 .) T h e D istric t C o u rt w e n t o n to sta te th a t b e c a u se N a ss e r h a d su c c e ss f u lly s upervi s ed the cons t ruct i on of the Pr i nces s e C as h and C arr ybui l di ng, Z i l a had a good10

rea so n to b eli ev e tha t he w as c ap ab le of takin g o n this si m il ar task . T h e D istri ct C o u rt fu rth er d eterm ined that the a cts th at t o o k p lace af ter th e a cc iden t occ u rred – N asse r’s deci s i on t o dr i ve Sant i l l an t o t he hos pi t al , t o pourrum on hi m , and t o l i e aboutthe ci r cumst ance s of the ac ci dent– w entbey ond t he s cope of hi s empl oym entand coul d not b e a t t r i b u t e d t o Z i l a o rf o rm t h e b a s i s o f

a p u n i t i v e d a m a g e s a w a r d a g a i n s th e r . F i n a l l y, th e D istric t C o u rt f

o u n d th a t th e f

a c t th a t Z ila a n d N a ss e r f a iled to f o llo w sa f

e ty r e g u l a t i o n s a tt h e s i t e s e tb yt h e Oc c u p a t i o n a l S a f e t ya n d He a l t h Ad mi n i s t r a t i o n ( OS HA) w as “not. . . a s uffi ci entbas i s fora j uryt o aw ar d puni t i ve damages ” bec aus e “e vi dence of O SH A vi ol at i ons i s notnegl i gence pers e, butcan be cons i der ed as evi dence of n e g lig e n c e ” a n d “ [ n ]e g lig e n c e a lo n e . . . is n o t a b a s is f o r p u n itiv e d a m a g e s .” (J .A . 8 6 6 .) O n ap p ea l, S an ti ll an arg u es th at i t w as re aso n ab le fo r th e juryto inf er th a t Z ila h a d f

u ll k n o w led g e th a t N a ss e r w a s c o n stru c tin g th e T a rg e t b u ild in g w ith i m m i gr antl abor ; thatno s afe t yequi pm entw as bei ng us ed; thatSant i l l an w as on t he r oof w i t houtpr ot ect i on; and thata forkl i ftw as bei ng us ed t o pus h pl yw ood t ow ar d Sant i l l an t w o s t or i es up. A ppel l ee’ s B r . at50- 51. Sant i l l an furt herar gues thatZ i l a r epea t edl yl i ed on t he s t and att r i al , s t at i ng t hats he had no know l edge of w hatw as goi ng on atthe s i t e, di d notknow i f any one w as i n fac tw or ki ng on t he s i t e, and w as unaw ar e thatany one had b ee n injured there . Id. F o r th ese rea so n s, S an ti ll an co n tend s tha t pu n it ive d am ag es w ere pr operagai ns tZ i l a. W h ile w e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t N a ss e r’s b e h a v io r in a ttem p tin g to11

c o v e ru p t h e a c c i d e n tc o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d o u t s i d e th e s c o p e o f h i s e mp l o yme n t , we u lti m a telyc o n c lu d e th a t th e ju ry ’s d e c isio n to a w a rd p u n iti v e d a m a g e s a g a in st Z ila s h o u ld be uphel d beca us e Zi l a w as r eckl es s i n r et ai ni ng N as s ert o over s ee the cons t ruct i on of the T ar get bui l di ng pur s uant t o R es t at ement ( 2d) of T or t s § 909( b) . W ed o n o tfi nd c o n v in c in g th e D istric t C o u rt’s c o n c lu sio n th a t Z ila c o u ld a ss u m e N a ss e r w a s a c a p a b le for eman becaus e he ha d bui l tt he Pr i nces s e C as h and C arr yw i t houti nci dent . T her e i s no evi dence on t he r ecor d t o i ndi cat e w hatthe condi t i ons w er e atthe cons t ruct i on s i t e fort he Pr i nces s e bui l di ng; t he abs ence of an a cci dental one i s nots uffi ci entpr oof thatthe c o n s tru c tio n o f

th e P ri n c e s s e b u ild in g w a s c o n d u c te d in a p ro p e r m a n n e r. W hati s cl earfr om t he evi dence pr es ent ed attr i al i s thatcondi t i ons atthe Tar get bui l di ng cons t ruct i on s i t e w er e extr emel ypoor : ther e w as no s afe t yequi pm entof any ki nd pr ovi ded t o t he w or ker s , t he r el evantperm i t s fr om l ocal author i t i es had notbeen se c u re d a n d W o rk e r’s C o m p e n sa tio n c o v e ra g e w a s n o t p a id . T h e re w a s a lso a m p le ev iden ce at tri al (via the test im o n yo f Z il a’s d au g h ter an d o ther e m p loy ee s) fo r a r eas onabl e j ur yt o concl ude thatZ i l a w as aw ar e of thes e condi t i ons fr om the t i m e thatt he p roje c t c o m m e n c e d th ro u g h th e d a te o f th e a c c id e n t, d e s p ite h e r t e s tim o n yto th e c o n tr a ry. T hi s know l edge of

t he poorcondi t i ons , and the dec i s i on t o cont i nue t o empl oyN as s eras t h e m a n a g e ro f

t h e c o n s t ru c t i o n s i t e , f

o r m th e b a s i s o f

Z i l a ’ s l i a b i l i t y.

I I I .12

F o llo w in g th e ju ry ’s v e rd ict, S a n til lan re q u e ste d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt a w a rd h im $ 5 0 , 4 1 8 . 2 5 fo r va ri o u s co sts. A fter o ral argu m en t on the c lai m s, the D istri ct C o u rt aw arded S anti l l an o nly$1 0, 35 9. 50 for the fo l l ow i ng i t em s: Subpoena, i nt erpr et erand tr ans cr i ptcos t s fordi s coverydepos i t i ons w er e deni ed re g a rd le s s o f

w h e th e r t h e tr a n s c ri p ts w e re u s e d f o r i m p e a c h m e n t p u rp o s e s a t tr ia l. T he expe ns es of depos i t i on t r ans cr i pt s us ed as tr i al t es t i m onyw er e al l ow ed. St andar d s ubpoena a nd w i t nes s fee s have be en al l ow ed forpl ai nt i ff’ s w i t nes s es w ho t est i fi ed at tri al i ncludi ng exp ert s. H ot el and tr avel expens es forpl ai nt i ff’ s for ens i c ec onom i s tw er e al l ow ed. O t hercos t s of phot os , document s , phot o enl ar gement s , tr i al i nt erpr et er s et c. , have been a l l ow ed. (S u p p lem en tal Jo int A p p en d ix “S . J. A . ” 2 3 0 5 . ) T h e D istri ct C o u rtd en ied S an ti ll an ’s rem ai ning request s – i ncludi ng rei m bu rs em ent for cost s ass ociat ed w i t h d epo si t i on s, copy i ng, s ervi ce of

s ubpoenas and the r et ent i on of expe r tw i t nes s es – fi ndi ng thatthey w ere “e ith er insu ff

ici en tl yn ec essa ryo r ex ce ssive . ” (S . J. A . 2 3 0 4 . ) T h e D istri ct C o u rt in d ica ted th a t ith a d re lied o n b o th 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 2 0 a n d V .I. T it. 5 , § 5 4 1 to re a c h its deci s i on. O n appea l , Sant i l l an ar gues thatthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed byr el y i ng i n par ton 28 U . S. C . § 1920; he furt hercont ends thathe i s ent i t l ed t o t he r emai nderof the cos t s and fee s r eques t ed. O urr evi ew i s forabus e of di s cr et i on. D r . B ernar d H el l erFoundat i on v. L ee , 8 4 7 F . 2 d 8 3 , 8 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 8 ). P re v a ili n g p a rties in th e D istric t o f th e V irg in Isla n d s w h o in c u r c e rta in c o sts in13

connec t i on w i t h V i r gi n I s l ands t err i t or i al cl ai m s m aybe ent i t l ed, atthe di s cr et i on of the D i s t r i ctC our t , t o r ei m bur s ementof thos e cos t s pur s uantt o V . I . T i t . 5, § 541. Fi guer oa v. B ucca neerH ot el , I nc. , 188 F. 3d 172, 183 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . Such par t i es cannotbe aw ar ded cos t s pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1920 – t he fe der al s t atut e thatauthor i zes r ei m bur s ementfor a s i m i l ars etof expe ns es – beca us e thi s s t atut e does notappl yi n t he D i s t r i ctC our tof the V i r gi n I s l ands . D r . B ernar d H el l erFoundat i on, 847 F. 2d at87. T hi s i s beca us e the D i s t r i ctC our tof the V i r gi n I s l ands does notfal l w i t hi n t he def i ni t i on of “c our tof the U n ited S tate s” in tit le 2 8 o f th e U n ited S tate s C o d e ; th a t d e f in iti o n e n c o m p a ss e s o n ly th o s e c o u rt s w h e re ju d g e s a re “ e n title d to h o ld o f f ic e d u ri n g g o o d b e h a v io r,” 2 8 U .S .C . § 4 5 1 , wh e r e a s t h e j u d g e s wh o s i to n th e Di s t r i c tCo u r to f th e Vi r g i n I s l a n d s h a v e t e r ms that are ca p p ed at 10 y ea rs. 4 8 U . S . C . § 1 6 1 4 (a). Fort hi s r eas on, i tw as i m pr operforthe D i s t r i ctC our ti n t hi s cas e t o r el yi n parton 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 2 0 in rea ch ing it s d ec isi o n ab o u t w h ich c o sts t o g ran t Sa n ti ll an . M o reo v er, th e re is a n in su f

f icie n t re c o rd to d e ter m in e w h e th e r o r n o t th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e c isio n to denySant i l l an’ s addi t i onal r eques t s forcos t s cons t i tut ed an a bus e of di s cr et i on. T he D i s t r i ctC our ts t at ed onl yt hatt hos e cos t s thatw er e notgr ant ed w er e deni ed as “ei t her in su f f icie n tlyn e c e ss a ryo r e x c e ss iv e .” (S .J.A . 2 3 0 4 .) W ith o u t f u rth e r e x p lan a tio n , itis i m pos s i bl e t o know w hethert he D i s t r i ctC ourtw as w i t hi n i t s di s cr et i on t o denySant i l l an t he cos t s and fe es he r eques t ed. I V.14

Fort he r eas ons s etfor t h above, w e r ever s e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on t o s et as i de the puni t i ve damages aw ar d agai ns tZ i l a. W e al s o r emand t he ques t i on of w hether ornotSant i l l an i s ent i t l ed t o t he fe es and cos t s r eques t ed thatw er e i ni t i al l ydeni ed s o t hat t he D i s t r i ctC our tcan pr ovi de a mor e compl et e expl anat i on fori t s deci s i on. O n al l other iss u e s, w e a f

f irm th e D istric t C o u rt.