203 A.3d 1167
R.I.2019Background
- On June 8, 2010, 17-year-old Austin Yattaw was injured while bicycling in Glenlyon Park (East Providence) when his tire allegedly wedged in a crack in a concrete retaining wall, producing serious fractures.
- Yattaw sued the City of East Providence (and a public-works manager) for negligence in maintaining the park.
- The City produced computerized work orders and expenditure reports but said handwritten daily "trip tickets" were routinely destroyed and none were available.
- Plaintiff alleged spoliation: destruction of trip tickets warranted an adverse inference that the City knew of the defect, creating a genuine issue that the RUS exception applied.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment for the City under the Recreational Use Statute (RUS), finding no evidence of bad-faith destruction or prior notice of the defect; plaintiff appealed.
- The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) no spoliation inference was warranted and (2) even an inference of notice would not satisfy the RUS exception absent proof of willful or malicious failure to guard or warn after discovering a user in peril.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of RUS immunity | RUS bars liability for public recreational land; plaintiff argues exception applies here | City: park is public and plaintiff was engaged in recreational use, so RUS bars the claim | RUS applies; City immune absent a valid statutory exception |
| Spoliation / adverse inference from missing trip tickets | Missing handwritten trip tickets were routinely kept and their destruction permits an adverse inference that City knew of the defect | City: trip tickets were routinely destroyed after transcription; no evidence of intentional or negligent destruction | No spoliation inference: record shows routine destruction/transcription and no bad faith; spoliation doctrine inapplicable |
| Whether notice/inference satisfies §32‑6‑5(a)(1) exception (willful/malicious failure to guard or warn after discovering user’s peril) | Implied notice from destroyed tickets is enough to show willful/malicious failure and defeat RUS immunity | Even if notice existed, notice alone does not meet the high standard of willful or malicious failure to guard or warn after discovering a user in peril | Held for City: notice alone insufficient; facts unlike Berman (no history of prior incidents or notice of repeated danger), so exception not met |
| Preservation of argument about definition of “peril” | Plaintiff contends the defective condition placed him in a position of peril sufficient for the exception | City: argument was not raised below and is not preserved for appeal | Court refuses to address definition of “peril” claim as it was not raised in Superior Court (raise-or-waive rule) |
Key Cases Cited
- Symonds ex rel. Symonds v. City of Pawtucket, 126 A.3d 421 (R.I. 2015) (RUS classifies recreational users as trespassers and limits owners’ duties)
- Berman v. Sitrin, 991 A.2d 1038 (R.I. 2010) (repeated serious incidents may put municipality on notice so RUS exception applies)
- Mead v. Papa Razzi Restaurant, 840 A.2d 1103 (R.I. 2004) (spoliation instruction appropriate when required reports are routinely kept but not produced without satisfactory explanation)
- Tancrelle v. Friendly Ice Cream Corporation, 756 A.2d 744 (R.I. 2000) (spoliation doctrine permits adverse inference where party deliberately or negligently destroys relevant evidence)