Gilberto Vasquez v. Sportsman's Inn, Inc.
57 A.3d 313
R.I.2012Background
- Plaintiff Vasquez sues Sportsman’s Inn, Inc., DLM, Inc., and DLM Realty, LLC for injuries from a gunshot near the Fountain Street club, alleging inadequate security.
- Defendants lease the Fountain Street property and share corporate structure and operations; trials noted intermingled finances and control.
- Superior Court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting encumbrance or sale of the Fountain Street property pending further order.
- Trial evidence showed numerous police calls to the location; security staffing on the night was minimal; there was no outside security posted.
- Trial court concluded corporate formalities could be disregarded and that Vasquez showed likelihood of success on the merits; court also addressed pre-judgment attachment.
- On appeal, the Rhode Island Supreme Court vacates the injunction, holding the record fails to show a prima facie breach of duty and leaves unresolved whether veil piercing applies at this stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Vasquez show likelihood of success on the negligence claim? | Vasquez argues duty to protect patrons and breach due to inadequate security. | Sportsman’s Inn contends no evidence ties shooting to its conduct or location. | No prima facie nexus; duty not shown; injunction vacated. |
| Was irreparable harm shown to justify an injunction? | Vasquez contends potential massive damages justify injunctive relief given defendants' limited assets. | Defendants contest irreparable harm absent breach of duty proved. | Record insufficient to establish irreparable harm on the merits. |
| Should the corporate veil be pierced at this stage? | Vasquez argues intermingled control supports piercing to reach assets. | Defendant contends veil piercing is premature and not established. | Veil piercing unnecessary at this stage; not decided. |
Key Cases Cited
- Iggy’s Doughboys, Inc. v. Giroux, 729 A.2d 701 (R.I.1999) (preliminary injunction factors framework)
- J.B. Prata, Ltd. v. Bichay, 468 A.2d 266 (R.I.1983) (scope of review for injunctions)
- Ouch v. Khea, 963 A.2d 630 (R.I.2009) (elements of tort negligence)
- Selwyn v. Ward, 879 A.2d 882 (R.I.2005) (duty, foreseeability, and relationships in torts)
- Doe v. Gelineau, 732 A.2d 43 (R.I.1999) (doctrine of piercing corporate veil and related circumstances)
- Martin v. Lincoln Bar, Inc., 622 A.2d 464 (R.I.1993) (prejudgment attachment in tort actions; limits)
- A.J.C. Enterprises v. Pastore, 473 A.2d 269 (R.I.1984) (causational inferences linking proximity to premises)