Bristol | Cranston | Newport | North Kingstown | Pawtucket | Providence |Wakefield | Warwick
Rhode Island (RI) Supreme Court Slip and Fall, Negligence and Premises Liability decisions
Virginia MEAD et al.
PAPA RAZZI RESTAURANT et al.
“the instant matter, the evidence clearly indicated that a puddle of liquid was seen near the accident site, and that defendants’ busy employees were in the walkway where Mead’s fall occurred. We recognize that plaintiffs did not present conclusive evidence of the nature or origin of the liquid, or of the amount of time it remained on the floor. However, we are of the opinion that the evidence that was presented, coupled with the circumstance of defendants’ failure to produce a policy-mandated incident report, created issues of material fact that should have been presented to the jury.” http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8908429237707570946&q=slip+fall+premises+liability+accident&hl=en&as_sdt=4,40
keywords: Rhode Island Supreme Court, RI accident Law, David slepkow
Annie Jill MASSART, By and Through Her agents and Legal Guardians, Edward MASSART and Bernice Massart
TOYS R US, INC.
“The guardian/plaintiffs filed a Superior Court complaint against Toys R Us, alleging that Annie suffered injuries, including a fractured right ankle, when she fell in the Warwick Toys R Us store on December 29, 1993. The plaintiffs contended that Toys R Us knew or should have known of the unsafe condition on its premises that caused her to fall. After a trial before a Superior Court justice and a jury, but before the case was submitted to the jury, the trial justice granted Toys R Us’s motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. On appeal, plaintiffs contend that there was sufficient evidence of negligence to submit the case to the jury. In addition, plaintiffs argue that the trial justice erred in allowing defendant to present evidence that Annie had fractured her other ankle in an unrelated incident two years prior to her fall in the Toys R Us store.”
“Annie, who was eleven years old at the time of trial and eight years old when the slip and fall occurred, testified that she and her mother went to the Toys R Us store in 188*188 Warwick on the night of December 29, 1993 in order to buy slides for a microscope that she had received as a Christmas present. She testified that there were long lines at the cash registers and that her mother decided to wait in line while she remained in the toy aisle. As Annie began to make her way toward her mother after her mother had beckoned to her, the youngster tripped over the base of a small basketball hoop and fell to the floor. After she fell, she noticed that the hoop was on its side, with the bottom of the structure jutting out from one of the side aisles into the main aisle. Annie stated that she did not see the hoop until after she fell.”
keywords: ri slip and fall accident, providence premises liability attorney
Rebecca L. GUSHLAW et al.
Matthew J. MILNER et al.
“As this Court has stated, “no clear-cut formula for creation of a duty exists that can be mechanically applied to each and every negligence case.” Santana, 969 A.2d at 664 (quoting Kenney Manufacturing Co. v. Starkweather & Shepley, Inc., 643 A.2d 203, 206 (R.I.1994)). For that reason, we carry out “an ad hoc approach that `turns on the particular facts and circumstances of a given case[.]'” Ouch, 963 A.2d at 633 (quoting Benaski v. Weinberg, 899 A.2d 499, 502 (R.I.2006)). As discussed, this particularized practice encompasses the consideration of several factors, including “(1) the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, (2) the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered an injury, (3) the closeness of connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered, (4) the policy of preventing future 1257*1257 harm, and (5) the extent of the burden to the defendant and the consequences to the community for imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach.” Ferreira, 652 A.2d at 967-68 (quoting Banks, 522 A.2d at 1225). The “relationship between the parties” is likewise considered in our duty analysis. Selwyn, 879 A.2d at 887 (quoting Martin, 871 A.2d at 915).” http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9975030636688939426&q=slip+fall+premises+liability+accident&hl=en&as_sdt=4,40&as_ylo=2008&as_yhi=2014
East providence personal injury lawyer, Providence slip and fall attorney
Maureen HABERSHAW et al.
MICHAELS STORES, INC. et al.
It also is well settled in our jurisprudence that there is an affirmative duty on owners and possessors of property:
“to exercise reasonable care for the safety of persons reasonably expected to be on the premises * * * includ[ing] an obligation to protect against the risks of a dangerous condition existing on the premises, provided the landowner knows of, or by the exercise of reasonable care would have discovered, the dangerous condition.” Kurczy v. St. Joseph Veterans Association, Inc., 820 A.2d 929, 935 (R.I.2003) (quoting Tancrelle v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp., 756 A.2d 744, 752 (R.I. 2000)); accord Mead v. Papa Razzi Restaurant, 840 A.2d 1103, 1107 (R.I.2004).
Although a business invitor is not a guarantor of the safety of those who might be expected on the property, a duty remains to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition for prospective business invitees. Terry v. Central Auto Radiators, Inc., 732 A.2d 713, 716 (R.I.1999).
To recover in a slip-and-fall action such as the case before us here, a plaintiff “must present evidence of an unsafe condition on the premises of which the defendant was aware or should have been aware, and that the condition existed for a long enough time so the owner of the premises should have taken steps to correct [it].” Bromaghim v. Furney, 808 A.2d 615, 617 (R.I.2002) (citing Barone v. Christmas Tree Shop, 767 A.2d 66, 68 (R.I. 2001)).
RI Personal injury Attorney
HCP, INC., et al.
“As defendant has suggested, the facts of this case are analogous to facts we confronted in Holley, 968 A.2d at 272-74. In Holley, the plaintiffs argued that the defendant had a duty to maintain the premises where plaintiff’s alleged injury had occurred; but we held that,
“under our well-settled law, a commercial landlord owes a duty of care to an invitee of its tenant only under the narrowest of circumstances * * * [and that] such a landowner is not liable for injuries that the tenant’s invitee suffers on the leased premises, `unless the injury results from the landlord’s breach of a covenant to repair in the lease, or from a latent defect known to the landlord but not known to the tenant or guest, or because the landlord subsequently has assumed the duty to repair.'” Id. at 274 (quoting Lucier v. Impact Recreation, Ltd., 864 A.2d 635, 640 (R.I.2005)).
The plaintiff has failed to prove that any of the three exceptions apply in this case. The master lease agreement between HCP and Healthtrax did not contain a covenant for HCP to repair; rather, it provided specifically that the tenant bore the responsibility for the maintenance and repair of the premises. See Holley, 968 A.2d at 275. Further, the icy surface on which plaintiff slipped and sustained her injury cannot be considered a latent defect known only to HCP because it was a weather condition. We have determined “that a latent defect is `a defect that is undiscoverable upon reasonable inspection.'” Id. (quoting Neri v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 719 A.2d 1150, 1154 (R.I. 1998)). Finally, plaintiff failed to produce any evidence demonstrating that HCP assumed a duty to repair the premises. See id. Therefore, we discern no error in the trial justice’s decision to grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment.” http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10280744337776856354&q=slip+fall+&hl=en&as_sdt=4,40&as_ylo=2008&as_yhi=2014
Legal Notice per Rules of Professional Responsibility: The Rhode Island Supreme Court licenses all lawyers and attorneys in the general practice of law, but does not license or certify any lawyer / attorney as an expert or specialist in any field of practice. While this firm maintains joint responsibility, most cases of this type are referred to other attorneys for principle responsibility.