Almonte v. KURL
46 A.3d 1
R.I.2012Background
- Plaintiffs sue for wrongful death under G.L.1956 § 10-7-1 alleging medical negligence by Dr. Kurl and hospital.
- Decedent Peter Almonte was discharged from Fatima Hospital’s ER about 36 hours before his suicide.
- Plaintiffs alleged Dr. Kurl breached the physician-patient duty by not properly evaluating and initiating commitment; hospital liable under respondeat superior.
- Jury found no negligence by Dr. Kurl; plaintiffs moved for new trial; defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law (Rule 50).
- Trial court granted Rule 50, concluding plaintiffs failed to prove causation by a preponderance of the evidence.
- On appeal, plaintiffs argue error on Rule 50 ruling, failure to give spoliation instruction, lack of evidentiary presumption, and denial of Rule 59 motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there legally sufficient causation evidence to submit to the jury? | Almonte would have been committed under § 40.1-5-7; Kurl’s failure proximately caused death. | No expert causation evidence; burial of causation under statute; 72-hour commitment not established; no liability. | Trial court correct to grant Rule 50; no competent causation proof |
| Should the jury have been given a spoliation instruction? | Spoliation applicable because evidence gap from missing psychiatric evaluation. | Spoliation doctrine not extendable to evaluation that never existed; not appropriate. | Trial court did not err in denying spoliation instruction |
| Was an evidentiary presumption under § 40.1-5-7 appropriate? | Presumption should shift burden due to inability to obtain evaluation. | Policy does not support a presumption; need proof of causation still rests with plaintiff. | Court declines to adopt presumption; burden remains with plaintiff |
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying Rule 59 new trial? | Erroneous weighing of evidence or credibility; new trial warranted. | No misapprehension of evidence; verdict supported by record; no reason to disturb. | Affirmed denial of Rule 59 motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Perry v. Alessi, 890 A.2d 463 (R.I. 2006) (duty and causation in medical negligence require proof by competent evidence)
- Malinou v. Miriam Hospital, 24 A.3d 497 (R.I. 2011) (standard of care and expert proof in professional negligence)
- Contois v. Town of West Warwick, 865 A.2d 1019 (R.I. 2004) (loss of chance considerations; causation framework guidance)
- Lett v. Giuliano, 35 A.3d 870 (R.I. 2012) (standards for reviewing jury instructions and sufficiency on appeal)
- Summers v. Tice, 199 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1948) (alternative liability doctrine shifting burden when evidence shows mutual negligence)