2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

4-19-2011

Selma Joseph v. Siewdath Sookram

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 10-3454

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Selma Joseph v. Siewdath Sookram" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 1413.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/1413
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 10-3454

_______________

SELMA JOPSEH and GEORGE JOSEPH

v.

SIEWDATH SOOKRAM

SELMA JOSEPH and GEORGE JOSEPH

v.

S&S SERVICES CORPORATION

Selma Joseph and George Joseph,

Appellants

_______________

On Appeal from the District Court of the Virgin Islands

Appellate Division of St. Croix

(D.C. Civil Action No. 3-05-cv-00066)

District Judge: Honorable Curtis V. Gomez

_______________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

April 14, 2011

_______________

Before: SCIRICA, RENDELL and AMBRO, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: April 19, 2011)

_______________

OPINION

_______________
2

AMBRO, Circuit Judge

George Joseph and his wife, Selma Joseph, sued Mr. Joseph’s employer following 

an “on the job” welding accident. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants. 

We conclude that the District Court did not err in affirming the Virgin Islands Superior 

Court’s decision rejecting the Josephs’ motion to reconsider.1

Because we write solely for the parties, we recite only those facts necessary for 

our decision. George Joseph was employed by S&S Services Corporation as a welder. 

In January 2001, he was severely injured when, while cutting steel drums with a torch, a 

spark ignited one of the drums causing an explosion. After learning that S&S would not 

provide him with worker’s compensation benefits (because it had not paid necessary 

premiums), Joseph and his wife sued S&S and its President, Siewdath Sookram

(collectively “S&S”), for damages in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands. In June 

2004, the jury returned a verdict in favor of S&S. The Josephs filed a motion to 

reconsider, which the Superior Court denied. The Josephs appealed to the District Court, 

which affirmed the Superior Court’s order. This appeal followed.

2

The Josephs make three arguments on appeal. First, they argue that the Superior 

Court erred by failing to submit Mr. Joseph’s worker’s compensation claim, “based on 

 

1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

 

2 We review the denial of a motion to reconsider for an abuse of discretion, unless it is 

based on the “interpretation and application of a legal precept,” in which case our review 

is plenary. Koshatka v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 762 F.2d 329, 333 (3d Cir. 1985). 
3

absolute liability,” to the jury.3 They are incorrect. Under the Virgin Islands Worker’s 

Compensation Act, an injured employee of an uninsured employer must elect between 

receiving compensation from the Worker’s Compensation Administration (payment of 

which is billed to the employer) or bringing a common law suit against the employer. 24 

V.I.C. § 261(b)(1). The Josephs elected to sue S&S for negligence and loss of 

consortium. Thus, they were not entitled to pursue a claim for worker’s compensation 

benefits.

In making this argument, the Josephs also contend that the Trial Court ruled, and 

then reversed its decision, that it would apply an absolute liability standard (by which we 

assume they mean strict liability). They misunderstand the Court’s ruling. During the 

pretrial conference, the Court ruled that S&S could not assert the common law defenses 

of contributory or comparative negligence and assumption of risk. It never determined 

that S&S would be held to a standard of absolute liability.4

Second, the Josephs argue that the Court erred by allowing argument and 

testimony that Mr. Joseph was responsible for his own safety and had cut the drum in an 

 

3 Our review over this argument is plenary. Felix de Asencio v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 500 

F.3d 361, 366 (3d Cir. 2007). 

4

The Josephs also cite to 24 V.I.C. § 252(a), which provides that an employer “shall pay 

compensation” for injury that occurs in the scope of an employee’s employment. They 

note that to avoid paying compensation under the statute the burden is on the employer to 

show that the injury was caused solely by the “willful misconduct” or “willful intention 

of the employee to injure . . . himself . . . .” However, section 252(a) only applies to 

insured employers, and thus is inapplicable here. 
4

unsafe manner.5 They also contend that, although the Court instructed the jury that it 

could not consider testimony as evidence of contributory negligence by Mr. Joseph, it 

erred, inter alia, by failing to define “contributory negligence.” Together, the Josephs 

argue that these errors resulted in manifest injustice. 

Again, we disagree. After what they perceived as inappropriate questioning and 

argument implying Mr. Joseph was partially responsible for his injuries, the Josephs 

requested that the Court instruct the jury not to consider the evidence for the improper 

purpose of showing Mr. Joseph’s negligence. The Court agreed to do so in an 

“abundance of caution,” and gave the following instruction:

There was testimony in this case that Mr. George Joseph should 

have used a cold chisel and hammer instead of a welding torch to cut the oil 

drums. You are not to consider that testimony as evidence of any 

contributory negligence on his part or a proximate cause of the injuries 

suffered by him.

In light of this curative instruction, the Court did not err by allowing testimony 

about Mr. Joseph’s drum-cutting technique. The testimony—that employees were 

instructed to use a cold chisel and hammer when cutting drums for S&S—was relevant to 

whether the Mr. Joseph was acting within the scope of his employment when he was 

injured. The Court recognized that the jury might use this for the improper purpose of 

assigning negligence to Mr. Joseph, and gave an appropriate instruction. The fact that the 

Court did not define “contributory negligence” was not error; the instruction made clear 

that the jury was not to assign any blame to Mr. Joseph for his injuries. 

 

5 We review a trial court’s decision to admit evidence for an abuse of discretion. United 

States v. Johnson, 199 F.3d 123, 125 (3d Cir. 1999).
5

Finally, the Josephs argue that the Court erred by denying their motion to insert 

the words “or another employee” into questions on the verdict form that asked whether 

Gerald Christian (undisputedly an employee of S&S) had provided Mr. Joseph with the 

drums and/or ordered him to alter them.6 For the third time, we disagree. Because there 

was no additional evidence that an employee other than Christian had given instructions 

to Mr. Joseph, or was even present prior to or during the incident, the Court was well 

within its discretion to deny the Josephs’ motion.

* * * * *

For these reasons, we affirm. 

 

6

It seems they requested this change so that the questions would match Mr. Joseph’s 

testimony that “Gerald Christian or another employee” had ordered Joseph to alter the 

drums. As requested by the Josephs, the questions at issue would have read: “Do you 

find that Mr. Gerald Christian or another employee ordered plaintiff Mr. George Joseph 

to burn the fittings on eight drums?” and “If you find that Mr. Gerald Christian or 

another employee ordered . . . Mr. George Joseph to burn the fittings, was he negligent in 

doing so without first inspecting the drums and clearing them of combustible fumes?” 

We also review the denial of such a motion for an abuse of discretion. Race Tires Amer., 

Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 614 F.3d 57, 73 (3d Cir. 2010).