182 A.3d 1129
R.I.2018Background
- DeLong (college hockey player) alleged he and teammates suffered acute respiratory injury (carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide exposure) after a game at defendants’ ice rink where propane-fueled Zambonis were used.
- Plaintiff sought treatment the morning after the game; medical records diagnosed acute lung injury from inhalation of toxic fumes. Several teammates reported similar symptoms.
- Defendants (arena owner/operator) moved for summary judgment, arguing no dangerous condition, no notice, and no causal proof: plaintiff testified he did not see or smell fumes and the Department of Health’s next-day CO test was negative.
- Plaintiff opposed with affidavits from his coach and teammates describing gas odors, visible emissions from a malfunctioning Zamboni, contemporaneous requests to ventilate the rink, a newspaper account of an earlier similar incident, and the defendants’ later purchase of an electric Zamboni.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed de novo and vacated, holding material factual disputes existed that should be decided by a jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of dangerous/defective condition | Affidavits describing gas odor, visible emissions, and multiple teammates ill; DOH did not test for NO2; later purchase of electric Zamboni | Plaintiff saw/smelled nothing; DOH air-quality reading and next-day CO test showed no toxins | Disputed issue of fact; evidence sufficient to deny summary judgment |
| Notice to defendants of condition | Coach’s affidavit: asked staff to open doors; evidence of prior similar incident (Salve Regina) and newspaper account | Employees’ depositions: no complaints, never observed fumes | Disputed factual question for jury; summary judgment inappropriate |
| Causation between rink condition and injury | Medical records diagnose toxic-fume inhalation at rink; circumstantial affidavits of teammates/coach | Plaintiff conceded he could not be 100% certain what caused his illness; no direct scientific proof exposure occurred on premises | Proximate cause may be proved circumstantially; factual dispute exists—jury must decide |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment | Summary judgment improper where material factual disputes exist over defect, notice, and causation | Summary judgment appropriate based on lack of objective evidence and plaintiff’s equivocal testimony | Court: motion justice impermissibly weighed competing evidence; vacated summary judgment and remanded for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Van Hoesen v. Lloyd’s of London, 134 A.3d 178 (R.I. 2016) (standard of review for summary judgment; view evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Cooley v. Kelly, 160 A.3d 300 (R.I. 2017) (elements for premises-liability claim and requirement of notice for latent defects)
- Skaling v. Aetna Insurance Co., 742 A.2d 282 (R.I. 1999) (causation may be proved by inference)
- Rose v. Brusini, 149 A.3d 135 (R.I. 2016) (proximate cause ordinarily a question for the factfinder)
- Plainfield Pike Gas & Convenience, LLC v. 1889 Plainfield Pike Realty Corp., 994 A.2d 54 (R.I. 2010) (summary judgment identifies—does not resolve—factual disputes)
- DeMaio v. Ciccone, 59 A.3d 125 (R.I. 2013) (negligence questions typically for jury)
- Antonakos v. Providence Institution for Savings, 181 A.2d 101 (R.I. 1962) (notice required to impose duty to remediate latent condition)