Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Mark Van Hoesen was seriously injured when he fell from a deck. Van Hoesen and his wife (together, Plaintiffs) filed an amended complaint alleging negligence against Lloyd’s of London, the insurer of the contractor who constructed the deck. The trial court granted summary judgment for Lloyd’s on the grounds that the insurance policy had been canceled and had expired long before the injuries alleged in Plaintiffs’ complaint occurred. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) from the terms of the contract, for Plaintiffs’ claims to be covered, the “bodily injury” must also have occurred during the policy period; and (2) therefore, the insurance company had no duty to provide coverage for the bodily injury that happened outside the policy period. View "Van Hoesen v. Lloyd’s of London" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a multi-count complaint against Defendants - the Town of Narragansett, the treasurer for the town, the town police department, and two police officers - alleging, among other things, assault and battery, false arrest, and gross negligence or misconduct. The superior court ultimately entered summary judgment in favor of Defendants. Plaintiff appealed and further appealed the denial of multiple pretrial motions. The Supreme Court (1) vacated the judgment of the superior court with respect to its grant of summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim of assault and battery, holding that the assault and battery claim was not fit for resolution by summary judgment; and (2) otherwise affirmed, holding that none of Plaintiff’s other claims withstood summary judgment and that there was no error in the denial of Plaintiff’s pretrial motions. View "Albanese v. Town of Narragansett" on Justia Law

The Free & Clear Company (Free & Clear) filed suit alleging that the Narragansett Bay Commission (NBC) owed it damages. NBC admitted liability, and the case proceed to trial on the issue of damages only. The jury returned a verdict for Free & Clear in the amount of $680,277, and the trial justice added prejudgment interest in the amount of $756,169. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice (1) did not err in instructing the jury; (2) properly reviewed the testimony of Free & Clear’s expert witness when issuing his decision; (3) did not err in refusing to apply the doctrine of judicial estoppel to portions of the testimony of Free & Clear’s expert witness; (4) did not err in denying NBC’s motion for a remittitur; (5) correctly calculated prejudgment interest; and (6) did not err by denying NBC’s motion for partial judgment as a matter of law. Further, the jury’s award of damages was not based on impermissible speculation. View "Free & Clear Co. v. Narragansett Bay Comm’n" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was injured at a park owned by the Town of South Kingstown while she was a spectator at a Little League baseball game organized by the South Kingstown Little League (Defendant). Plaintiff brought this complaint alleging that Defendant was negligent in maintaining the premises of the baseball field. The hearing justice granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, concluding that Defendant had no duty to inspect and maintain the park where Defendant had no ownership interest in the property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the Town was responsible for maintenance of the park, Defendant did not owe a duty of care to Plaintiff. View "Carlson v. Town of South Kingstown" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that she was shopping at a Walgreens store when she was hit and injured by a ball that an employee of Walgreens had thrown. The trial justice eventually dismissed the case with prejudice “for failure to proceed at trial” after first denying Plaintiff’s motion for a continuance. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, holding that, in light of the unusual circumstances of this case, the trial justice abused her discretion in dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of prosecution and in denying Plaintiff’s motion for a continuance and/or mistrial. View "Cotter v. Dias" on Justia Law

Defendant, an attorney, represented Plaintiff in post-final judgment divorce proceedings. Defendant later withdrew as counsel with the family court’s approval. Three years later, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant, alleging legal malpractice, negligence, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty. The superior court entered summary judgment in favor of Defendant on each of Plaintiff’s claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff’s legal malpractice and fraud claims were barred by the statute of limitations, and the trial justice did not err in concluding that the discovery rule did not toll the statute of limitations; (2) Plaintiff’s malpractice claims necessarily failed because she did not retain an expert witness to testify in support of her case; and (3) Plaintiff’s remaining claims on appeal were wholly without merit. View "Behroozi v. Kirshenbaum" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was the beneficiary of a charitable trust. Included within the trust was a provision allowing Plaintiff to live rent-free in a certain property. When Plaintiff exercised his right to occupy the property and allowed his parents to move in in violation of the trust provisions, the trustee of the trust instituted legal action to evict Plaintiff and his parents. Plaintiff later filed a complaint against Defendant, the attorney who advised the trustee on the issue, alleging negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. The superior court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims, concluding that Defendant did not owe Plaintiff a duty while he represented the trustee. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the complaint was properly dismissed because Defendant did not owe Plaintiff a duty of care with regard to his representation of the trustee. View "Audette v. Poulin" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs - Jazmine Wray and Reginald Green - brought a negligence suit against Defendants - Roy and Antonio Green - as a result of a three-vehicle rear-end collision, claiming that, as a result of the collision, they experienced pain and suffering and incurred medical bills and lost wages. One of the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The motion was granted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the superior court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, as Plaintiffs failed to present any evidence to prove that the defendant breached his duty of care. View "Wray v. Green" on Justia Law

Landlords filed an eviction action against Tenant. Eventually, the parties settled the eviction action by a stipulation that was signed by the district court judge. Thereafter, Tenant filed a negligence action alleging that Landlords failed to maintain the house free from toxic mold and fungus and that the mold ruined Tenant’s personal property. Landlords filed a motion in limine to prevent Tenant from entering the parties’ stipulation into evidence to prove causation in the negligence action and moved for summary judgment. The hearing justice granted Landlords’ motion in limine, barring the admission of the district court stipulation. The court then granted summary judgment for Defendants, ruling that Tenant could offer no other evidence of causation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the hearing justice correctly granted the motion in limine, as nothing in the stipulation established that Landlords caused mold to accumulate on Tenant’s personal property; and (2) because Tenant conceded that there was no other evidence on the element of causation, the hearing justice correctly granted Landlords’ motion for summary judgment. View "Curreri v. Saint" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was a school bus driver employed by Durham School Services (Durham), a private bus company. Citing a “Driver Withdrawal” provision from its contract with Durham for transportation of school students, the Town of Johnston School Department formally requested to not have Plaintiff transport students of the Johnston Public Schools. Lomastro was subsequently terminated. Plaintiff filed a complaint against the interim superintendent for the Town of Johnston and the director of facilities and transportation of Johnston public schools (collectively, Defendants), claiming that Defendants intentionally interfered with her contract with her employer. The hearing justice granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff failed to provide evidence that the school department invoked its contractual right to withdraw its approval of Plaintiff as a driver without justification, which prevented Plaintiff from establishing a prima facie case of intentional interference with contractual relations. Therefore, the hearing justice did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants. View "Lomastro v. Iacovelli" on Justia Law