Gary Lemont v. Estate of Mary Della Ventura
157 A.3d 31
| R.I. | 2017Background
- On Sept. 12, 2003, Lemont was helping a friend move from a second-floor apartment and leaned against a second-floor bannister on a small landing while maneuvering a nightstand; the bannister cracked and he fell to the first-floor landing, sustaining injuries.
- Lemont sued the landlord (Estate of Ventura) for negligence, claiming the small landing and inadequate railing created a dangerous condition and that the landlord knew or should have known of the danger.
- At trial Lemont was the sole witness; he testified the railing was not broken before he leaned on it and that it cracked when he exerted only "a little bit of pressure." Photographs of the railing were admitted, and Lemont urged the jury to infer negligence (invoking res ipsa loquitur in argument).
- The jury returned a verdict for Lemont, apportioning 65% fault to the defendant and awarding damages (after comparative negligence reduction) totaling $78,101.15.
- The trial justice granted defendant’s renewed motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial, concluding Lemont failed to present evidence that the railing or landing was defective or that the landlord knew or should have known of any defect; she also found res ipsa was not supported or properly instructed.
- The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the evidence was legally insufficient to support the jury verdict because Lemont did not show a defect or landlord notice/discoverability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to show a dangerous/defective railing or landing | Lemont: small platform plus weak railing created an unsafe condition; circumstantial evidence (res ipsa) sufficed | Ventura: no evidence of a preexisting defect or notice; plaintiff’s testimony shows the railing broke when he leaned on it, not that it was defective | Held: Evidence insufficient; plaintiff failed to prove defect or landlord notice; JMOL proper |
| Applicability of res ipsa loquitur | Lemont: jury could infer negligence from the railing breaking without a formal res ipsa instruction | Ventura: res ipsa not established and was not pleaded or proven | Held: Res ipsa requirements not met; trial justice correctly refused to base verdict on it |
| Jury instruction / trial error for failing to instruct on res ipsa | Lemont: no instruction needed for jury to rely on circumstantial inference | Ventura: instruction unnecessary because plaintiff didn’t prove prerequisites | Held: Any reliance on res ipsa was improper; trial justice erred in allowing consideration without proper basis but JMOL cured error |
| Admission of building-code/expert evidence (late disclosure) | Lemont: should have been allowed to present former inspector on code violations | Ventura: late disclosure and relevance issues; building predates code | Held: Trial justice did not abuse discretion in denying late evidence; appellant failed to provide required transcripts for meaningful review |
Key Cases Cited
- Roy v. State, 139 A.3d 480 (discussing standard of review for JMOL)
- Hough v. McKiernan, 108 A.3d 1030 (same standard for examining evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Wray v. Green, 126 A.3d 476 (elements of negligence claim)
- Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. D.F. Pepper Construction, Inc., 59 A.3d 106 (negligence elements and causation)
- Tancrelle v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp., 756 A.2d 744 (landowner duty to discover and remedy dangerous conditions)
- Giron v. Bailey, 985 A.2d 1003 (landlord obligations under Residential Landlord and Tenant Act)
- Ramos v. Granajo, 822 A.2d 936 (affirming judgment where plaintiff produced no evidence balcony/railing was improperly maintained or that owner had notice)
- Parrillo v. Giroux Co., 426 A.2d 1313 (sets elements for res ipsa loquitur)