sounder rule in Virgin Islands

2025The Superior Court analyzed the question as a matter of common law and, after conducting the analysis required by Banks v. International Rental & Leasing Corp., 55 V.I. 967 (V.I. 2011), determined that it was the sounder rule for the Virgin Islands to “place no duty upon the possessor of land abutting a public sidewalk relative to the risk posed by the condition of the sidewalk, regardless of whether the possessor’s interest in the land is commercial or residential, unless the possessor of the abutting land created the risk.” (J.A. 36.) Applying this common law rule, the Superior Court conclud

2015Id. at 983 .

2014Simon, 59 V.I. at 625 (determining “the soundest rule for the Virgin Islands” is the overriding consideration in defining the common law).

2014Although Browne did follow the majority approach in adopting the burden and standard of proof governing the court’s determination, Browne’s ultimate holding — that “section 3 . . . denies the right to pretrial bail for defendants charged with first degree murder when the proof is evident or the presumption great,” Browne, 50 V.I. at 257 (emphasis added) — would clearly place the Virgin Islands within the minority of jurisdictions if the People are correct as they initially argued that Browne means that defendants charged with first-degree murder can only be granted pre-trial bail if the People

2014Additionally, the Court observed in Matthew v. Herman, 56 V.I. 674, 679-81 (2012), that Banks was the Court’s “first substantive review of section 4 and how it interacts with the formation of common law in the Virgin Islands,” and then clarified — albeit in the context of whether Virgin Islands courts must follow 1 V.I.C. § 4’s directive to apply the American Law Institute’s restatements of the law — that Virgin Islands courts should not “follow the majority blindly,” but rather consider the majority rule and then determine whether it is “the soundest rule for the Virgin Islands.” This approac

2014Although Browne did follow the majority approach in adopting the burden and standard of proof governing the court’s determination, Browne’s ultimate holding — that “section 3 . . . denies the right to pretrial bail for defendants charged with first degree murder when the proof is evident or the presumption great,” Browne, 50 V.I. at 257 (emphasis added) — would clearly place the Virgin Islands within the minority of jurisdictions if the People are correct as they initially argued that Browne means that defendants charged with first-degree murder can only be granted pre-trial bail if the People

2014Although Browne did follow the majority approach in adopting the burden and standard of proof governing the court’s determination, Browne’s ultimate holding — that “section 3 . . . denies the right to pretrial bail for defendants charged with first degree murder when the proof is evident or the presumption great,” Browne, 50 V.I. at 257 (emphasis added) — would clearly place the Virgin Islands within the minority of jurisdictions if the People are correct as they initially argued that Browne means that defendants charged with first-degree murder can only be granted pre-trial bail if the People

2012The reasons given for abolishing the amatory torts differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but generally the emphasized concerns are (1) the torts were originally founded on the idea that wives were property of their husbands, (2) the torts have destructive results on existing marriages, and (3) the courts are unable to adequately valúate and address the harms caused by adulterous behavior. 5 Compare Helsel v. Noellsch, 107 S.W.3d 231, 232 (Mo. 2003) (“There are many persuasive reasons for abolishing the tort of alienation of affection.

2011See, e.g., Williams v. United Corp., 50 V.I. 191 , 195 n.3 (V.I.2008).