Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff Linda Pereira injured her left ankle when she fell into a depression in the grass at at park owned by the city of East Providence. Plaintiff filed a personal injury action against the city, alleging that the city negligently breached its duty to maintain the park in a reasonably safe condition and that it negligently failed to warn her of an unsafe condition on the premises. The defendant affirmatively alleged that the city was shielded from liability under the state Recreational Use Statute and filed a motion for summary judgment on this basis. The trial justice granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, and plaintiff appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Recreational Use Statute immunized the city from liability. View "Pereira v. Fitzgerald" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Martin Malinou filed a wrongful death and medical negligence action against Miriam Hospital and other medical professionals after his ninety-four year old mother died. Defendants filed motions for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff's claims were not supported by competent expert testimony and that plaintiff could not meet his burden of proof on the issues of breach of the standard of care and causation. The trial justice granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants. Plaintiff appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) given plaintiff's repeated noncompliance with discovery orders, the trial justice did not abuse her discretion by precluding two doctors from testifying as expert witnesses; (2) because plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to support his underlying claims for medical negligence and wrongful death, plaintiff did not have a viable claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress or for loss of society and companionship; (3) adopting a loss-of-chance doctrine would not preclude the entry of summary judgment in favor of defendants; and (4) plaintiff did not raise a genuine issue of material fact in showing one of defendant doctors filed a false death certificate in violation of R.I. Gen. Laws 11-18-1. View "Malinou v. The Miriam Hospital" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Barry DuBois, an environmental officer, was seriously injured when he was bitten by a dog owned by defendant Frederick Quilitzsch while DuBois was inspecting a pigeon loft on defendant's property. DuBois and his wife filed a civil action against defendant, alleging strict liability, premises liability, and negligence. After discovery, defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that because the alleged attack occurred within the enclosure of the home and the defendants had no knowledge of the dog's vicious propensity, they were entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. The trial justice granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on all three counts. Plaintiffs appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no genuine issue of material fact as to defendants' knowledge of the dog's vicious propensities, and (2) any modification to the state's dog-bite law is best left to the legislature. View "DuBois v. Quilitzsch" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Kathy Lamarque executed a mortgage with defendant Centreville Savings Bank. After defaulting on another loan for a second mortgage on the same property, defendant disclosed the balance of plaintiff's mortgage to the purchaser of plaintiff's property at a foreclosure sale. Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant for negligence and a violation of plaintiff's privacy rights. At trial, defendant moved for a judgment on partial findings, which the trial court granted. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that her right to privacy was violated by defendant and that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and defendant's privacy policy created a legal duty to protect private information from disclosure. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that under the facts of the case, plaintiff's privacy rights were not violated and defendant did not breach its duty to plaintiff. View "Lamarque v. Centreville Savings Bank" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Deborah Dawkins was treated by defendant David Siwicki during an emergency room visit after the plaintiff fell and injured her left wrist. The plaintiff subsequently filed a medical malpractice lawsuit, alleging negligent diagnosis and treatment by the defendant. The plaintiff was initially treated by the defendant and subsequently underwent multiple surgeries over the span of several years, which the plaintiff alleged were necessary because of the defendant's alleged negligent treatment of her injury. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed, raising a number of arguments before the Supreme Court, many of which centered around the defense of the plaintiff's comparative negligence based on the defendant's contention that cigarette smoking impeded her treatment. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court, finding the trial justice did not abuse his discretion in the arguments raised by the plaintiff regarding pretrial ruling matters, alleged trial errors, and posttrial motions. View "Dawkins v. Siwicki" on Justia Law

Plaintiff City of Providence filed a complaint against John Doe et al. and Jane Doe et al., unknown defendants, for trespassing on city-owned land by setting up an encampment. The complaint sought injunctive relief enjoining defendants from trespassing on the property. The trial court granted plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. The defendants appealed, arguing (1) the trial court improperly denied their motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, (2) because other remedies at law may exist, the grant of equitable relief was inappropriate, and (3) the preliminary injunction failed for indefiniteness because it applied only to unknown persons and therefore was unenforceable at a contempt proceeding. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the superior court had subject-matter jurisdiction and R.I. Gen. Laws 8-8-3(a)(2) did not divest the court of jurisdiction, (2) because the trespass was continuous injunctive relief was appropriate, and (3) the terms of the order were specific enough to enable someone reading the injunctive order to understand what he or she may not do under it. View "City of Providence v. John Doe, et al." on Justia Law

The City of Newport appealed a Superior Court order that ultimately made it liable for injuries sustained by Plaintiff Geraldine Sloat. In 2004, Ms. Sloat sued the City and State because she tripped and fell on a sidewalk in Newport. She argued that the City and State were responsible for maintaining the sidewalks. The State denied liability but did not cross-claim the City. The City moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the State assumed maintenance of the sidewalk through a "Construction and Maintenance Agreement." The State responded to the City by producing another agreement that placed responsibility back on the City. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the City alleged multiple technical errors at trial that lead to a misapplication of the law. Upon careful consideration of the arguments, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Plaintiff Virginia Sharkey appealed the dismissal of her legal malpractice claim against Defendant Attorney George Prescott. Plaintiff and her husband retained Attorney Prescott to prepare an estate plan. Mr. Prescott established a trust indenture that the Sharkeys executed in 1999. Subsequently, the Sharkeys signed a quitclaim deed, also prepared by Mr. Prescott, which conveyed two lots of land they owned to the trust. Plaintiff asserted that the trust was set up to care for the surviving spouse. Mr. Prescott sent Plaintiff a letter shortly thereafter, memorializing the actions he took on their behalf. Mr. Sharkey died in 2002. In 2003, Plaintiff wanted to sell one of the two lots conveyed to the trust. The local authority told Plaintiff that because both lots were conveyed to the trust, they effectively merged together, and could not be sold as she intended. In 2006, Plaintiff sought access to trust funds. The bank informed Plaintiff that she was not able to get access as she had intended. These two instances lead Plaintiff to believe that Mr. Prescott was negligent in the performance of his duties as her attorney. In 2009, Plaintiff brought suit against Mr. Prescott. Mr. Prescott moved to dismiss the case, arguing that Plaintiffâs claims against him were time-barred. The trial court dismissed Plaintiff's case as time barred. After a review of the case, the Supreme Court found that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment with regard to the letter Mr. Prescott sent memorializing the trust set-up. The Court reasoned that because Plaintiff claims she did not receive the letter, this created a "genuine issue of fact" that could not withstand a grant of summary judgment. For this, the Court reversed the trial courtâs decision, but affirmed it on all other respects. The case therefore, was remanded for further proceedings.

Plaintiff Veronica Coates appealed the Superior Courtâs dismissal of her complaint against Defendant Ocean State Jobbers, Inc. Plaintiff argued that she should have been granted a continuance in the case because the Defendant refused to provide her with documents she needed to try her case and also because of her physical disabilities. The Supreme Court did not find that the lower court abused its discretion by denying Plaintiffâs request for a continuance. Subsequently the Court affirmed the Superior Courtâs decision that dismissed Plaintiffâs case.

In 2001, the president of Ocean State Job Lot conducted an inspection of one of the companyâs stores. He expressed his displeasure over placement of a price sticker, and removed it, forcefully placing it on the shoulder of Plaintiff-Employee Irene DaPonte. Plaintiff filed suit alleging a violation of her privacy rights through an âunreasonable intrusion on her physical solitude or seclusion.â Even though the trial judge thought the presidentâs actions were highly inappropriate, she nevertheless dismissed Plaintiffâs case because she could not find a legal basis for it under state law. Plaintiff appealed. The Supreme Court held that it âshare[d] the trial justiceâs conclusion that even though there was a strong gloss of inappropriateness, and indeed offensiveness, attached to [the presidentâs] action,â the trial judge was ânot clearly wrong in her decision.â The Court affirmed the lower courtâs dismissal of Plaintiffâs case.