154 A.3d 935
R.I.2017Background
- On June 17, 2006, Josue Espinal, playing in a Little League game at a Providence public park, slid into home plate and suffered serious leg fractures when his foot allegedly went under a lifted corner of the plate.
- Plaintiff (mother and natural guardian) sued the City of Providence on October 13, 2006, alleging negligent maintenance of the field and bases.
- The city moved for summary judgment on August 7, 2014, invoking Rhode Island’s Recreational Use Statute, which broadly immunizes the state and municipalities for injuries sustained on public recreational facilities used without charge.
- At the November 18, 2014 hearing both parties agreed discovery was complete; the Superior Court granted summary judgment for the city on December 16, 2015.
- Plaintiff appealed, arguing on appeal that the city willfully or maliciously failed to guard or warn of a known dangerous condition, citing a third-party statement that a complaint had been made to a city-council member about the park’s poor condition.
- The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the willful/malicious exception was not preserved below and, alternatively, the record lacked evidence that the city had the requisite knowledge to trigger that exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Recreational Use Statute immunity | Rohena: city not liable because exception for willful or malicious failure to guard/warn applies | City: statute immunizes municipalities for injuries during free recreational use; no willful/malicious conduct alleged or shown | Court: statute applies; immunity bars suit absent willful/malicious conduct and none established |
| Preservation of willful/malicious exception | Rohena: relied on third‑party statement that a league official told a city council member about field problems | City: plaintiff did not raise that theory below nor submit supporting affidavit or witness statement in opposition to summary judgment | Court: argument waived for appeal (raise‑or‑waive); even if considered, record lacks evidence of notice or deliberate inaction by city |
Key Cases Cited
- Sola v. Leighton, 45 A.3d 502 (R.I. 2012) (de novo review standard for summary judgment)
- Plunkett v. State, 869 A.2d 1185 (R.I. 2005) (summary judgment standard: no genuine issue of material fact)
- Bido, 941 A.2d 822 (R.I. 2008) (raise‑or‑waive rule; issues not raised at trial are forfeited on appeal)
- Berman v. Sitrin, 991 A.2d 1038 (R.I. 2010) (example where municipality’s knowledge could support willful failure to guard/warn)
- Carlson v. Town of South Kingstown, 111 A.3d 819 (R.I. 2015) (insufficient evidence of notice of specific defect does not satisfy willful/malicious exception)