Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Morse, a long-time fire-rescue captain, had separate work-related back injuries in 2009 and 2011. In both cases he was eventually released to work. Morse injured his back again while lifting a patient during a 2012 rescue call. After the third injury, he did not return to work. Pursuant to the Providence Code of Ordinances, Morse was evaluated by three independent medical examiners. There was disagreement concerning whether the code covers disability as the result of multiple injuries. One of the consultants found Morse not to be disabled. The Retirement Board of the Employees Retirement System of the City of Providence denied Morse’s application for an accidental disability pension, based solely on the board’s self-imposed “unanimity rule,” requiring that all three physicians agree that the applicant was permanently disabled as a result of a work-related injury. The Rhode Island Supreme Court quashed the decision. The board’s adoption of the unanimity rule effectively abandoned its authority to a single disagreeing physician. Because the board failed to make any factual findings with regard to the petitioner’s application, this matter was remanded to the board for reconsideration. View "Morse v. Employees Ret. Sys. of the City of Providence" on Justia Law

In 2003, Budlong, a Rhode Island Public Transit Authority bus driver, claimed that he was assaulted while on his bus route. Over a year later, Budlong identified Hall as his attacker. Budlong’s bus route went by the Halls’ Newport home about 32 times each day. Hall was ultimately acquitted. The Halls later alleged that Budlong “embarked on a pattern of harassment” and sent letters informing RIPTA of the alleged harassment. A superior court granted the Halls a temporary restraining order against Budlong and later entered mutual restraining orders. RIPTA informed the Halls that routes were assigned under a collective bargaining agreement and that this was “a private dispute,” or “a police matter.” The Halls filed suit against RIPTA, specifying incidents in which Budlong drove toward them, blocked their driveway, and engaged in other intimidating behavior. The Rhode Island Supreme Court vacated summary judgment in favor of RIPTA, stating the Halls’ letters put RIPTA on notice of the conflict and claims of harassing behavior, so that RIPTA had a duty to exercise reasonable care in conducting a full investigation, followed by appropriate action to ensure that its employee was not harassing the Halls. View "Hall v. City of Newport" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants alleging breach of fiduciary duty resulting from oppressive conduct, breach of fiduciary duty resulting from self-dealing, fraud in the inducement, and negligent misrepresentation. During trial, Plaintiff produced 155 pages of documents that had not been produced to Defendants during discovery. Defendants argued that they were denied a fair trial because the information contained in the documents would have permitted them to properly cross-examine Plaintiff. The district court dismissed the case with prejudice pursuant to Sup. Ct. R. Civ. P. 37(b) as a sanction for the mid-trial production of documents. The court subsequently denied Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the order of dismissal under Sup. Ct. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial justice did not err in dismissing Plaintiff’s claim with prejudice pursuant to Rule 37; and (2) the trial justice did not abuse his discretion in denying Rule 60(b) relief. View "Joachim v. Straight Line Prods., LLC" on Justia Law

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