157 A.3d 31
R.I.2017Background
- On Sept. 12, 2003, Lemont was helping a friend move from a second-floor apartment owned by Ventura and fell from the second-floor landing when a banister/railing cracked and gave way. He sustained a broken wrist and other injuries.
- Lemont sued for negligence alleging Ventura knew or should have known of an unsafe condition (inadequate landing/weak railing) and failed to warn or repair.
- At trial Lemont was the sole witness; he testified the railing was intact before he leaned on it and that it cracked when he exerted light pressure while maneuvering a nightstand in a cramped landing.
- The jury found in Lemont’s favor, apportioning 65% negligence to Ventura and awarding damages; the trial justice reserved decision on defendant’s JMOL motion pending verdict.
- After verdict the trial justice granted Ventura’s renewed motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial, concluding Lemont failed to present evidence of a defect or of Ventura’s actual or constructive notice; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported breach (defective railing/landing) | Lemont: small platform + inadequate rail created dangerous condition; circumstantial evidence suffices | Ventura: no evidence of defect or notice; railing was intact before incident | Court: No — plaintiff failed to prove defect or breach; JMOL proper |
| Whether res ipsa loquitur supported inference of negligence | Lemont: banister breaking is circumstantial proof; jury need not be specially instructed on res ipsa | Ventura: res ipsa elements not met; plaintiff failed to eliminate other causes or show defect within defendant’s control | Court: No — res ipsa prerequisites not satisfied; plaintiff didn’t show other causes were eliminated or defendant’s notice |
| Whether defendant had notice (actual or constructive) of any defect | Lemont: landlord should foresee movers using cramped landing; therefore had duty to provide stronger rail | Ventura: no evidence she knew or should have known of any defect | Court: No — plaintiff presented no direct or circumstantial evidence of defendant’s knowledge or constructive notice |
| Whether verdict was against weight of evidence / new trial warranted | Lemont: jury correctly weighed circumstantial evidence | Ventura: verdict unsupported by evidence; Rule 411 and other trial issues alleged | Court: New trial not necessary after JMOL; trial justice properly concluded verdict against evidence and granted JMOL |
Key Cases Cited
- Roy v. State, 139 A.3d 480 (discussing standard of review for JMOL)
- Hough v. McKiernan, 108 A.3d 1030 (same JMOL review standard)
- Wray v. Green, 126 A.3d 476 (elements of negligence listed)
- Nationwide Property & Casualty Ins. Co. v. D.F. Pepper Constr., Inc., 59 A.3d 106 (negligence elements context)
- Tancrelle v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp., 756 A.2d 744 (landowner duty and notice requirement)
- Giron v. Bailey, 985 A.2d 1003 (landlord repair obligations under Residential Landlord & Tenant Act)
- Ramos v. Granajo, 822 A.2d 936 (similar facts; summary judgment affirmed where plaintiff failed to show maintenance defect or notice)
- Parrillo v. Giroux Co., 426 A.2d 1313 (elements required to invoke res ipsa loquitur)