Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff was injured when he fell down the stairs in his residence. Plaintiff filed a negligence action against Defendants, his landlords, alleging that Defendants failed to maintain the premises in a clean and safe condition. After a trial, the jury returned a verdict for Defendants. The superior court entered judgment in accordance with the verdict. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the trial justice erred by denying his motion to pass the case due to jury prejudice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice did not commit reversible error by rejecting Plaintiff’s motion to pass the case due to juror misconduct. View "Roma v. Moreira" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, by and through her mother, filed a complaint against the City of Pawtucket, alleging that she sustained injuries when she received a splinter while playing on a wooden jungle gym at a city park. A hearing justice granted summary judgment in favor of the City, determining that the City was qualified as a landowner that was entitled to immunity under the Recreational Use Statute (RUS) because the playground had been opened to the public for recreational purposes, there was no evidence to suggest that the jungle gym was damaged or dangerous, and the City did not engage in any wanton or malicious conduct. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that an exception to the RUS, R.I. Gen. Laws 32-6-5(a)(1), was applicable to her case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the City had knowledge of either the particular defect at issue int his case or similar injuries, and thus it could not be concluded that the City willfully disregarded a known risk of injury. View "Symonds v. City of Pawtucket" on Justia Law

This action arose from injuries Plaintiff suffered as a result of a fall he took while he was incarcerated at the Adult Correctional Institutions. Plaintiff filed a complaint against the State alleging negligence in failing to reasonably maintain the premises. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the State. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial justice denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial justice had a sufficient basis to find that the jury acted reasonably in rendering its verdict for the State; and (2) Plaintiff’s argument that the State should be held strictly liable for his injuries was barred by the raise-or-waive rule. View "Battle v. State" on Justia Law

In 2005, Plaintiffs purchased property from Seller, and Seller conveyed the property to Plaintiffs by deed. After the sale was finalized but before Plaintiffs were able to move into the property, Plaintiffs experienced significant flooding in the driveway, garage, and basement. The flooding and water-penetration issues persisted over the next several years. In 2010, Plaintiffs experienced extensive flooding of their property. Plaintiffs brought this action against Seller and entities involved in the sale (collectively, Defendants), alleging breach of contract, negligence, and fraud. The superior court granted Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding (1) the superior court correctly granted summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ contract and negligence claims; but (2) the merger and disclaimer clause contained in the purchase and sales agreement was not drawn with sufficient specificity to bar Plaintiffs’ claim for fraud. Remanded. View "McNulty v. Chip" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs initiated a medical malpractice suit against numerous medical organizations and professionals twelve years after their daughter, Yendee, was born with a genetic disorder. Plaintiffs alleged negligence in the diagnosis and treatment relating to Yendee’s genetic disorder and also asserted their own claims for loss of consortium. The superior court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, concluding (1) Plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the statute of limitations set forth in R.I. Gen. Laws 9-1-14.1; and (2) in light of Yendee’s status as a minor, the tolling provision in section 9-1-14.1(1) would allow Yendee to file suit in the future on her own behalf upon reaching the age of majority, but Yendee’s parents would not be permitted to attach their loss-of-consortium claims to Yendee’s future suit. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) under section 9-1-14.1(1), a minor’s parent or guardian may file suit on the minor’s behalf within three years of the occurrence or reasonable discovery of alleged malpractice, or the minor may file suit on her own behalf, but not until she reaches the age of majority; but (2) Plaintiffs’ claims may be asserted alongside Yendee’s claims if she elects to file suit upon reaching the age of majority. View "Ho-Rath v. Rhode Island Hospital" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a negligence action against the Town of South Kingstown stemming from an injury she sustained at a Town-owned park while she was a spectator at a little league baseball game. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that the Town was negligent in maintaining the park. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of the Town, concluding that the Recreational Use Statute (RUS) barred Plaintiff’s suit. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the hearing justice (1) did not err by applying the RUS to Plaintiff’s case; (2) did not err in refusing to apply the Minn. Stat. 32-6-5(a)(1) exception to the RUS to Plaintiff’s claim; and (3) properly applied the RUS in granting the Town’s motion for summary judgment. View "Carlson v. Town of South Kingstown" on Justia Law

In 2011, the Town of Middletown issued an invitation for bids on a drainage improvement project. Two contractors submitted bids, including HK&S Construction Holding Corp., which provided the lowest bid. Woodard & Curran, Inc. recommended against awarding HK&S the project and in favor of negotiating a contract with the second bidder. The town counsel concluded that HK&S’s bid was non-responsive and awarded the contract to the second bidder. Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Town and Woodard & Curran alleging, among other claims, that the Town violated state and local law when it denied the contract award for the project. The superior court granted summary judgment for Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no error in disposing of HK&S’s claims against the Town in summary judgment where HK&S failed to submit a responsive bid; and (2) HK&S’s claim of negligence against Woodard & Curran also failed. View "HK&S Constr. Holding Corp. v. Dible" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, David Miller and Miller’s Auto Body, alleged that they were subject to a malicious investigation into suspected insurance fraud that Defendants, three insurance companies, believed was taking place at Plaintiffs’ auto-body shop. Miller was charged with, among other charges, four counts of insurance fraud. The criminal information was dismissed by the Attorney General, but the dismissal was conditioned on an agreement between Miller and the Attorney General requiring Miller to execute a general liability release in favor of Defendants. More than one year after executing the release, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants. The trial court granted pretrial summary judgment for Defendants on the majority of Plaintiffs’ claims. Only Plaintiffs’ abuse-of-process claim went to trial. The jury returned verdicts in favor of Plaintiff against the two remaining defendants. The trial court subsequently granted judgment as a matter of law in favor of one defendant but denied the other defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the release executed by Miller before he initiated suit barred all his claims against the defendants. View "Miller v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against Defendants, medical providers, alleging, inter alia, claims of medical malpractice and negligence. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the hearing justice (1) did not overlook genuine disputes as to material facts that would preclude summary judgment; (2) did not err in finding that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur could not properly be applied to the facts of this case; and (3) did not err in granting summary judgment in light of what Defendant alleged was the “egregious conduct” of his former attorney. View "Laplante v. Rhode Island Hospital" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed this negligence action against Daniel Stack and the Disabled American Veterans Department of Massachusetts, Inc. (collectively, Defendants) seeking damages for injuries he received in an automobile accident. During the proceedings, the superior court justice made three rulings disputed by Defendants: (1) a denial of Defendant’s motion to compel additional discovery from material fact witnesses; (2) a grant of Plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order limiting Defendants’ planned neuropsychological examination of Plaintiff; and (3) a revocation of the pro hac vice admission of defense counsel. The Supreme Court granted Defendants’ petition for the issuance of a writ of certiorari regarding these issues and denied the petition in part and granted it in part, holding that the hearing justice (1) did not err in denying the motion to compel; (2) erred by precluding Defendants’ expert to take a history during the neuropsychological examination of Plaintiff and erred by allowing Plaintiffs’ attorney to be present during the testing phase of the examination but correctly allowed a third-party non-attorney representative to be present; and (3) erred by revoking defense counsel’s pro hac vice admission. View "Plante v. Stack" on Justia Law