Opinion ID: 202226
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Liability Under Puerto Rico Law

Text: 17 Even if the Convention is not applicable and therefore not preemptive, Iberia asks us to affirm on a different basis, arguing that the motion to dismiss was properly granted because Acevedo-Reinoso does not state a claim under Puerto Rico law.
18 Iberia contends that while Acevedo-Reinoso characterizes his claim as sounding only in tort, his claim also sounds in contract, based on the allegation in the complaint that Iberia breached its contract to travel with Acevedo. 9 Iberia further argues that, as between these two sources of law, in Puerto Rico contractual law [] control[s] the scenario depicted in the complaint. As a result, Acevedo cannot resort to general principles of tort law but must submit [himself] to the provisions applicable to contracts. Furthermore, because the parties did not contract for Iberia to assume the duty of verifying that Acevedo's papers were in order for entering Spain, a task that was Acevedo's personal obligation to comply with, Iberia argues that Acevedo-Reinoso's claim fails to state a claim for breach of contract under Article 1054 of the Civil Code of Puerto Rico, P.R. Laws Ann., Tit. 31, § 3018. 10 19 Aside from language in the complaint briefly alluding to a contractual claim, Acevedo-Reinoso nowhere argues that Iberia breached a contract. On the contrary, Acevedo-Reinoso asserts that his claim is without a doubt one in tort, and states in the complaint that his state law claims are based on Article 1802 of the Civil Code of Puerto Rico—the Puerto Rico statute governing tort claims, P.R. Laws Ann., Tit. 31, § 5141. 11 Nevertheless, even if we assume that Acevedo-Reinoso's claim sounds in both tort and contract, it does not follow that Puerto Rico contract law provides the remedy. In fact, the opposite is true: where the event that caused the damage results from the breach of both a contractual obligation as well as a noncontractual duty not to cause harm to another, Puerto Rico law holds that an action for damages for breach of contract does not lie. According to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court: 20 an action for damages for breach of contract [Article 1054] only lies when the damage suffered exclusively arises as a consequence of the breach of an obligation specifically agreed upon, which damage would not occur without the existence of a contract. However ... a claim for noncontractual damages resulting from the breach of a contract lies if the act that caused the damage constitutes a breach of the general duty not to injure anyone and, at the same time, a breach of contract. 21 Ramos Lozada v. Orientalist Rattan Furniture, Inc., 130 P.R. Dec. 712, 727, 1992 P.R.-Eng. 755597, 1992 WL 755597 (P.R. 1992) (emphasis added). Iberia's argument regarding the application of Puerto Rico contract law is therefore unavailing.
22 Iberia argues that even if Puerto Rico tort law applies to Acevedo-Reinoso's claim, his claim should still be dismissed. By contrast, Acevedo-Reinoso argues that the complaint adequately states a claim for negligence. We agree with Acevedo-Reinoso. Puerto Rico tort law imposes responsibility for damages caused by negligence or fault. The necessary elements to prevail in [such a] tort action are: (1) a negligent act or omission, (2) damages, and (3) a causal relationship between them. Irvine, IRG v. Murad Skin Research Labs., Inc., 194 F.3d 313, 321-22 (1st Cir.1999). The complaint alleges facts addressing each of these elements, stating that Iberia's negligent acts or omissions—i.e., its fail[ure] to advise [Acevedo-Reinoso] that he needed a visa in order to enter Spain—caused Acevedo-Reinoso to be detained by Spanish authorities in Spain, humiliated in front of his peers from the banking industry, and subjected to extensive mental anguish and sufferings. 23 Iberia's argument that an air carrier has no duty to advise passengers under Puerto Rico law is foreclosed by our decision in Compagnie Nationale Air France v. Castano, 358 F.2d 203 (1st Cir.1966). In that case, three passengers and a relative sued an air carrier under Puerto Rico tort law for failing to advise them that they needed visas to enter Spain. We opined that 24 the Puerto Rico court would ... hold [that] where there was evidence that the defendant, as an inducement to plaintiffs to purchase passage, had held itself out as a tourist or travel agency, and had negligently failed to provide the information that plaintiffs had reasonably been led to expect, [ ] damages for negligence would include ... proximate, though unforeseeable, injury of any sort. 25 Id. at 209. Applying this reasoning to the facts of that case, we held that the unforeseen suffering occasioned by defendant's failure to perform of the type here claimed can be compensated. Id. We noted, however, that there was a substantial factual issue whether this damage was proximate, and whether the plaintiff or plaintiffs reasonably attempted to mitigate the damages. Id. 26 Here, Acevedo-Reinoso claims that he was injured by the failure of an air carrier to advise him that he needed a visa to enter Spain. The facts alleged by Acevedo-Reinoso in this case are nearly identical to those alleged by the passengers in Castano, and thus are sufficient to state a claim for the negligent failure to advise under Puerto Rico tort law. 12