Opinion ID: 197550
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the mongoose attack and its sequelae

Text: Defendant-appellee Hyatt Hotels of Puerto Rico, Inc. (Hyatt) owns and operates the Cerromar Beach Hotel (the hotel) in Dorado, Puerto Rico. The hotel occupies a picturesque oceanfront setting. Its verdant grounds are bordered on the west by a mangrove swamp which is under the protection of the Commonwealth's Department of Natural Resources. On the far side of the swamp lies Lakeside Villas, a residential subdivision which was being built at the time material hereto. Hyatt has no financial or other proprietary interest in the development of the subdivision. On April 10, 1995, at approximately 5:00 p.m., plaintiff-appellant Lynne Woods-Leber, a guest, was sunbathing near the hotel's pool. Suddenly (and without any apparent provocation) a wild mongoose scurried into the pool area and bit her. Because the mongoose carried rabies, Woods-Leber underwent a series of painful inoculations. A few days after the attack, the hotel hired an exterminator, Pest Management International (PMI), to implement a 2 mongoose control program. PMI set several baited traps and captured fifteen mongooses in a week's time.1 PMI concluded that the most likely explanation for the infestation was that mongooses living in the mangrove swamp had been disturbed by the construction activity at Lakeside Villas and had migrated eastward onto the hotel's grounds. The traps were left in place on the premises. In due season, Woods-Leber invoked diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. 1332(a) (1994), and sued Hyatt in Puerto Rico's federal district court.2 Her suit sought damages for personal injuries under local law. Hyatt denied responsibility and, following a period of discovery, moved for brevis disposition, supporting its motion with a number of affidavits and declarations. The plaintiff opposed the motion but made only one evidentiary proffer: her husband's conclusory recitation of his suspicion that a temporary food preparation and storage area which had been installed near the pool functioned as 1The plural of mongoose is a matter of some debate in lexicographic circles. See, e.g., Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 767 (1989) (mongoose . . . n, pl mongooses also mongeese . . . .). Having noted the debate, however, we choose not to enter it. Thus, while we use the term mongooses throughout, we express no opinion on which plural noun is linguistically preferable. 2Woods-Leber's husband, Anthony Leber, joined as a coplaintiff. Inasmuch as his claim is derivative, we treat the appeal as if Woods-Leber were the sole plaintiff and appellant. Of course, our decision disposes of Anthony Leber's claim as well. 3 a mongoose magnet.3 On December 30, 1996, the district court granted Hyatt's motion. The court concluded, in substance, that Hyatt could not be held strictly liable because it had not exerted any control over the mongoose, and that it could not be held liable in negligence because it could not reasonably have been expected to foresee the mongoose attack. See Woods-Leber, 951 F. Supp. at 1039. This appeal followed.