context: Very few courts in the Virgin Islands have applied Section 3. Before Banks, a few District Court cases have applied Section 3.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 49 V.I. 826, 834
citation_a.parenthetical: Section 3 applicable where Plaintiffs were unable to prove that water was defective
citation_a.sentence: Mendez v. Hovensa, L.L.C., 49 V.I. 826, 834 (D.V.I. 2008) (Section 3 applicable where Plaintiffs were unable to prove that water was defective); see also Bodley v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45006, at *9 (D.V.I. Apr. 26, 2011) (citing Ocean Barge Transport Co. v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp., 726 F.2d 121, 124 (3d Cir. 1984) (acknowledging that plaintiff, through the use of circumstantial evidence, may establish the defect “by showing an unexplained occurrence and eliminating all reasonable explanations for the occurrence other than the existence of a defect”)).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 726 F.2d 121, 124
citation_b.parenthetical: acknowledging that plaintiff, through the use of circumstantial evidence, may establish the defect "by showing an unexplained occurrence and eliminating all reasonable explanations for the occurrence other than the existence of a defect"
citation_b.sentence: Mendez v. Hovensa, L.L.C., 49 V.I. 826, 834 (D.V.I. 2008) (Section 3 applicable where Plaintiffs were unable to prove that water was defective); see also Bodley v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45006, at *9 (D.V.I. Apr. 26, 2011) (citing Ocean Barge Transport Co. v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp., 726 F.2d 121, 124 (3d Cir. 1984) (acknowledging that plaintiff, through the use of circumstantial evidence, may establish the defect “by showing an unexplained occurrence and eliminating all reasonable explanations for the occurrence other than the existence of a defect”)).