Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, the executrix of the estate of the decedent, brought a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that the estate was entitled to underinsured motorist coverage under a policy issued by Quincy Mutual policy. The motion justice determined that the decedent was “occupying” his owned-but-not-insured motorcycle at the time of his fatal injury, and therefore, an exclusion of the policy applied. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that summary judgment was inappropriate because the decedent was separated from his motorcycle at the time of his death and, therefore, was not occupying the motorcycle as that term was defined in the Quincy Mutual policy. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to what impact caused the decedent’s fatal injuries and the time or distance between them, precluding summary judgment. View "Jackson v. Quincy Mutual Fire Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff slipped and fell while she was working as a contract nurse at the Rhode Island Veterans Home. Plaintiff brought suit against the State. After a trial, the jury awarded Plaintiff $500,000. The trial justice granted the State a remittitur, lessening Plaintiff’s award to $382,000. The prejudgment interest award, however, increased the judgment to $631,373.66. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial justice did not err in finding the the public-duty doctrine inapplicable; (2) the trial justice correctly rejected the application of the statutory tort cap in R.I. Gen. Laws 9-31-2; (3) the prejudgment interest award was not erroneous; (4) the trial justice properly denied the State’s motion for judgment as a matter of law; and (5) the State’s argument that the trial justice erred in failing to instruct the jury on comparative negligence was not preserved for review. View "Roach v. State" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Stephen Limoges claimed that he suffered significant pulmonary injuries in a chemical spill. Plaintiffs brought suit against three different entities, including Arden Engineering Constructors, LLC, alleging, inter alia, that they were individually and collectively responsible for Plaintiff’s injuries. Arden filed a motion for summary judgment, which the hearing justice granted. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that that the hearing justice made an improper credibility assessment about the affidavit of their expert and because he overlooked material issues of fact that were in dispute. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court, holding that Plaintiffs’ expert’s affidavit, combined with the documents that were available to the hearing justice, raised a material question of fact as to whether Arden was responsible for Plaintiff’s injury. View "Limoges v. Nalco Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a negligence suit against Defendant after falling and sustaining injuries while on Defendant’s property. After a trial, the jury returned a verdict in Plaintiff’s favor, finding Defendant to be sixty-five percent negligent. Defendant filed motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial. The trial justice granted both motions, concluding that the elements of Plaintiff’s negligence claim had not been established by the evidence adduced at trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence adduced at trial did not support a verdict in Plaintiff’s favor. View "Lemont v. Estate of Mary Della Ventura" on Justia Law

Carel Bainum was found guilty of willful trespass because of her unwelcome contact with a former resident in the dementia ward of the Coventry Health and Rehabilitation Center. Bainum then brought a civil action against the Coventry Police Department, alleging that her willful trespass conviction was the consequence of two malicious acts by the Department. The motion justice granted summary judgment in favor of the Department. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that summary judgment was proper because Plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim failed as a matter of law, and therefore, her civil-conspiracy claim must also fail. View "Bainum v. Coventry Police Department" on Justia Law

Jason Goffe and Michael Petrarca were high-speed racing when Goffe lost control of his vehicle and whirled into the eastbound lane. William Walmsley struck Goffe’s vehicle, killing Goffe and his passenger, Brendan O’Connell Roberti. Roberti’s parents (Plaintiffs) sued several defendants, including Walmsley. Because of settlement releases, Walmsley was the sole defendant who advanced to trial. A jury found Walmsley negligent and that his negligence was a proximate cause of Roberti’s death. Defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law, which the trial justice granted. Plaintiffs moved for a new trial and requested an additur to $250,000. The trial justice ruled conditionally that, if Defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law was overturned on appeal, he would grant Plaintiffs’ motion for additur. The Supreme Court vacated the superior court’s judgment and remanded for additional proceedings. On remand, Plaintiffs sought judgment against Walmsley for $250,000 per the additur. The hearing justice granted summary judgment for Defendant, finding that because Plaintiffs settled their claims against Goffe and Petrarca in the amount of $395,000, there was no basis for holding Walmsley individually liable for $250,000. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Wrongful Death Act is subject to joint and several liability principles. View "O’Connell v. Walmsley" on Justia Law

Lend Lease (US) Construction was the general contractor on a project, and Rossi Electric Company, Inc. was a subcontractor. An employee of Rossi’s subcontractor was injured while working on the project and filed a negligence claim against Lend Lease. Lend Lease filed a third-party complaint against Rossi, alleging that, under the terms of a contract between the parties, Rossi was required to defend and indemnify Lend Lease. The superior court entered an order granting summary judgment for Rossi. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court, holding that issues of material fact remained to be determined, and therefore, this case was not ripe for summary judgment. Remanded. View "Walsh v. Lend Lease (US) Construction" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Carmen Rohena, as parent and natural guardian of Josue Espinal, brought suit against Defendant, the City of Providence, to recover damages for injuries that Josue suffered while participating in a baseball game at Corliss Park, which was owned by Defendant. Defendant filed a motion to summary judgment, arguing that it was not liable pursuant to the Recreational Use statute. The superior court granted the motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff’s argument that Defendant’s conduct fell outside the scope of the Recreational Use Statute because the City willfully or maliciously failed to guard or warn against a known dangerous condition was not properly preserved for appeal. View "Rohena v. City of Providence" on Justia Law

A two-vehicle collision resulted in one of the automobiles striking Plaintiff while she was standing at her post as a crossing guard. Plaintiff sustained severe bodily injuries from the accident. Plaintiff filed suit against the two drivers, Chicara Alston and Rick Ford, alleging that each was negligent. As relevant to this appeal, the hearing justice granted Ford’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the hearing justice erred when he concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact in dispute. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court, holding that the elements of the negligence claim were inappropriately treated as a matter of law because the facts suggested more than one reasonable inference, and therefore, summary judgment was inappropriately granted. View "Williams v. Alston" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a complaint asserting that Defendants had caused contaminants to flow onto their property. Plaintiffs then filed amended complaints asserting claims for continuing trespass, public and private nuisance, and federal and state environmental regulations. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs, nonetheless, appealed from adverse rulings in Defendants’ favor. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment of the superior court, holding (1) the trial justice erred when she impermissibly limited the testimony of Plaintiffs’ expert; and (2) the trial justice abused her discretion in imposing sanctions against Attorney Brian Wagner. Remanded for a new trial on all issues with the exception of the prayer for injunctive relief. View "Paolino v. Ferreira" on Justia Law