Argelis Pichardo v. Julie Stevens
55 A.3d 762
| R.I. | 2012Background
- Pichardo sues Stevens under RI consent statutes for injuries from a collision where Stevens’s registered car struck a parked car owned by Pichardo.
- The Camry involved was Stevens’s; an Accident Report details the collision and a witness saw a person exit the Camry.
- Stevens asserted lack of consent via an Affidavit claiming the car was stolen and that the unidentified driver had no consent.
- Stevens moved for summary judgment, attaching the Affidavit, a Stolen Vehicle Report, and related documents; Pichardo contested.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment finding lack of consent, but the Supreme Court reversed, noting unresolved issues of material fact and statutory prima facie evidence of consent.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consent is a genuine issue of material fact despite prima facie evidence. | Pichardo argues consent is contested by conflicting evidence. | Stevens argues lack of consent is established by her Affidavit and Stolen Vehicle Report. | Yes; issue remains for trial; summary judgment improper. |
| Whether Stevens’ Affidavit and Stolen Vehicle Report overcome the prima facie consent under §31-33-7. | Pichardo contends evidence does not resolve consent as a matter of law. | Stevens contends the documents negate consent. | No; conflicting evidence precludes resolution at summary judgment. |
| Whether inconsistencies in Stevens’s statements create a jury question on consent. | Pichardo emphasizes inconsistent accounts support a factual dispute. | Stevens argues evidence supports no consent. | Yes; credibility and weight for the jury, not the judge, to resolve. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kent v. Draper Soap Co., 75 A.2d 571 (R.I. 1949) (consent burden on owner; rare for summary judgment to defeat statute)
- Andreoni v. Ainsworth, 898 A.2d 1240 (R.I. 2006) (conflicting consent evidence creates jury issue; not decide at summary judgment)
- Avedesian v. Butler Auto Sales, Inc., 93 R.I. 4, 170 A.2d 604 (R.I. 1961) (registration suffices to take consent issue to jury)
- Hill v. Cabral, 62 R.I. 11, 2 A.2d 482 (R.I. 1938) (rare and exceptional case for lack of consent as law)
- Estate of Giuliano, 949 A.2d 386 (R.I. 2008) (summary judgment is drastic; issue-finding, not determining)