184 A.3d 712
R.I.2018Background
- On Feb. 5, 2014, Charles Kemp slipped and fell in a shopping-center parking lot in front of a Rite Aid store, injuring his knee; snow was falling that day and a pile of snow in the lot affected where he parked.
- Kemp sued Rite Aid (tenant), Riverside Plaza Associates (landlord/owner), and Venditelli (snow-removal contractor) for negligence; Rite Aid moved for summary judgment arguing it owed no duty to Kemp because the lease assigned common-area snow removal to the landlord.
- The lease expressly made Riverside responsible for maintaining common areas, including snow removal, and allowed temporary snow deposits so long as they did not materially interfere with the tenant’s use.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment for Rite Aid (later renewed at close of plaintiff’s case), and Kemp proceeded to trial against Riverside and Venditelli; three post-accident photos of snow were excluded by motion in limine.
- The jury returned a verdict for defendants Riverside and Venditelli; Kemp’s post-trial motion for a new trial was denied, and Kemp appealed the grant of summary judgment for Rite Aid, the exclusion of the photographs, and denial of a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rite Aid owed a duty to Kemp | Kemp: As an invitee, he was owed a duty by Rite Aid regardless of lease allocation | Rite Aid: Lease assigned duty to landlord; Rite Aid had only a non-exclusive license to common areas and no duty to clear snow | Court: Rite Aid owed no duty; summary judgment affirmed |
| Admissibility of post-incident photographs of the parking lot | Kemp: Photos show snow conditions relevant to negligence | Defendants: Photos taken weeks/years later are irrelevant and prejudicial | Court: Trial justice did not abuse discretion excluding photos under Rules 401/403 |
| Whether trial justice erred in denying new trial (application of "Connecticut Rule") | Kemp: Unusual circumstances made landlord negligent and jury reached wrong verdict | Defendants: Connecticut Rule permits reasonable time to clear snow absent unusual circumstances; no evidence of unusual circumstances here | Court: No unusual circumstances shown; trial justice reasonably denied new trial |
| Credibility findings (cashier witness) | Kemp: Trial justice erred in crediting cashier who said she did not see the snow pile | Defendants: Credibility determinations are for the trial court | Court: Credibility findings are for trial justice; no reversible error shown |
Key Cases Cited
- High Steel Structures, Inc. v. Cardi Corporation, 152 A.3d 429 (R.I. 2017) (summary-judgment review is de novo)
- Boucher v. Sweet, 147 A.3d 71 (R.I. 2016) (standard for affirming summary judgment)
- Lucier v. Impact Recreation, Ltd., 864 A.2d 635 (R.I. 2005) (landlord not liable for tenant’s guests unless lease covenant or assumed duty exists)
- Terry v. Central Auto Radiators, Inc., 732 A.2d 713 (R.I. 1999) (Connecticut Rule: landowner may await a reasonable time after storm to clear snow absent unusual circumstances)
- Cappuccilli v. Carcieri, 174 A.3d 722 (R.I. 2017) (trial justice’s evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)