Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Two young men, Brendan O’Connell Roberti and Jason Goffe, were killed in a tragic automobile collision. Plaintiffs, the co-administrators of the estate of Roberti, sued William Walmsley, who was driving the vehicle that collided with the vehicle in which Roberti was a passenger when he was killed. A jury found that Walmsley was negligent and that his negligence was a proximate cause of Roberti’s death. The trial justice, however, granted Walmsley’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, concluding that there was no evidence establishing that Defendant’s operation of his vehicle was a proximate cause of the collision. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court granting Defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, holding that a reasonable jury could assign liability to Walmsley. View "O’Connell v. Walmsley" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a UPS driver, was delivering a package to the home of Defendants when he was bitten on his arm and leg by one of Defendants’ dogs. Plaintiff filed an action against Defendants, alleging that he was injured as a result of Defendants’ negligence in failing to secure their dogs. The superior court granted summary judgment for Defendants, concluding that there was no genuine issue of material fact about whether Defendants knew of the dog’s vicious propensity. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court, holding that material issues of fact existed that could permit a fact-finder that the dog did have a vicious propensity and that Defendants knew of it. View "Coogan v. Nelson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, Rose Nulman Park Foundation, owned real property that was used as a park. In 2011, Defendants, Robert Lamoureux and Four Twenty Corporation, completed construction on a $1.8 million home. A prospective buyer of the home had a survey conducted which revealed that the building was entirely located on Plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants, asserting that the structure constituted a continuing trespass on the property and requesting a mandatory injunction ordering Defendants to remove the structure. The trial justice concluded that a 13,000 square foot intrusion, amounting to six percent of the Nulman property, was not a de minimus encroachment and, accordingly, ordered Defendants to remove the structure. The Supreme Court affirmed after concluding that it would be unjust to order the transfer of title to a portion of the Nulman property to Defendants or to award only money damages, holding that injunctive relief was the appropriate remedy in this case. View "Rose Nulman Park Found. v. Four Twenty Corp." on Justia Law

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires that all pilots obtain and maintain a valid medical certificate. After he was involved in motor-vehicle accident, Plaintiff, a commercial pilot, surrendered his medical certificate at the request at the FAA. Plaintiff subsequently sought reinstatement from the FAA. The FAA retained Defendant, a physician, as a medical consultant to opine whether Plaintiff met the FAA’s criteria for alcohol dependence. After reviewing certain medical documents, Defendant determined that Plaintiff was substance dependent. Plaintiff sued Defendant, alleging that Defendant was negligent in making his report and that the FAA had relied on Defendant’s conclusion to Plaintiff’s detriment. The superior court denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty of care to accurately reach or report the conclusions of his records review. The Supreme Court quashed the order of the superior court, holding that Defendant did not owe Plaintiff a duty of care in this case. View "Woodruff v. Gitlow" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was crossing a street when she was struck by a vehicle operated by John Faelle, owned by Hertz Corporation, and purportedly rented to Anthony Carroccio. Plaintiff filed an action against Faelle, Hertz, and Carroccio. Hertz moved for summary judgment, arguing that it did not consent to Faelle’s operation of the vehicle that struck Plaintiff and, alternatively, that 49 U.S.C. 30106, the Graves Amendment, precluded the vicarious liability of Hertz as the owner of the vehicle. The superior court granted Hertz’s motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that summary judgment was not appropriate where (1) Hertz’s consent to Faelle’s operation of the vehicle remained an issue of material fact; and (2) the rental record did not establish the period of the rental for purposes of the Graves Amendment because it did not identify the vehicle involved in the accident. Remanded for trial. View "Marble v. Faelle" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit, individually and per proxima amici, against numerous defendants, alleging, inter alia, negligence, lack of informed consent, and vicarious liability for injuries sustained by their minor daughter, Yendee, who was born with a genetic blood disorder. Four groups of defendants filed motions to dismiss on the grounds that R.I. Gen. Laws 9-1-14.1(1), an act that tolls the three-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims when the person claiming injury is a minor, barred Plaintiffs’ claims. The trial justice entered judgment in favor of Defendants, concluding that all of Plaintiffs’ claims were time-barred but that Yendee retained the right to bring suit on her own behalf when she reached the age of majority, and up to three years thereafter. After issuing an order to show cause, the Supreme Court (1) vacated the judgments entered in favor of defendants Corning Incorporated and Quest Diagnostics, LLC because Plaintiffs’ allegations against these defendants were not medical malpractice claims; and (2) directed that Plaintiffs’ appeal, as well as the appeals and cross-appeals of Rhode Island Hospital, Miriam Hospital, Women & Infants Hospital and each hospital’s associated medical professionals, be assigned to the Court’s regular calendar for further briefing and argument. View "Ho-Rath v. R.I. Hosp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company and other defendants, alleging multiple counts. A jury found Defendants liable for abuse of process and awarded compensatory and punitive damages against each defendant. On May 31, 2012, judgments were entered against Defendants. On August 31, 2012, Metropolitan filed an appeal from the May 31, 2012 judgment, and on September 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed a notice of cross-appeal from the May 31, 2012 judgment. Metropolitan moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s cross-appeal, arguing that it was untimely because it was not filed within the initial twenty-day appeal period that began to run after entry of the August 20, 2012 orders. The trial justice denied Metropolitan’s motion to dismiss, concluding that Plaintiff’s cross-appeal was timely because it was filed within twenty days of Metropolitan’s August 31, 2012 notice of appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff’s September 18, 2012 notice of cross-appeal was timely because it was filed within the twenty-day period triggered by Metropolitan’s August 31, 2012 notice of appeal. View "Miller v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Defendant for negligence after the vehicles the parties were driving collided in an intersection. A jury found that Plaintiff had not proven, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that Defendant was negligent. The trial court subsequently granted Plaintiff's motion for a new trial, concluding that, based on the testimony of the independent fact witnesses and other evidence, the court's instructions were not properly understood or applied by the jury. The Supreme Court affirmed the order granting Plaintiff's motion for a new trial, holding that the trial justice had a sufficient basis to find that the jury's verdict did not respond to the evidence, did not overlook or misconceive material facts, and was not clearly wrong in granting Plaintiff's motion for a new trial View "Gomes v. Rosario" on Justia Law

A stone wall demarcated the boundary between Plaintiff's and Defendant's property. After Plaintiff discovered that a large portion of the stone wall had been destroyed and a significant number of trees on his property were missing, Plaintiff sought to recover damages from Defendant for the unauthorized removal of his trees and the theft of portions of the stone wall. After a jury trial, the trial court granted judgments as a matter of law in Defendant's favor. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) the trial justice abused her discretion in precluding expert testimony on the subject of historic stone walls, and the exclusion constituted reversible error; and (2) the trial justice committed prejudicial error in granting a judgment as a matter of law in Defendant's favor. View "Morabit v. Hoag" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was allegedly injured when he tripped and fell on a public sidewalk that was uneven and filled with cracks. Plaintiff sued the owner of the property that abutted the sidewalk and the property's tenants (collectively, Defendants), alleging negligence. The trial justice granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that Plaintiff had not raised a genuine issue of material fact and had failed to demonstrate that Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty of care or a duty to warn. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendants did not owe Plaintiff a duty of care because (1) Plaintiff's injuries occurred on a public sidewalk that was not within Defendants' control or possession; and (2) a property owner who owes no duty of care to an individual also owes no duty to warn those individuals. View "Wyso v. Full Moon Tide, LLC" on Justia Law