230 A.3d 588
R.I.2020Background
- Vicente contracted with Pinto’s in Jan 2014 to repair his 2004 Freightliner; parts were ordered from Tri State and paid for by Vicente, and Pinto’s installed a new cylinder head.
- Vicente picked up the truck in Sept 2014 and began experiencing severe mechanical problems in Dec 2014; an engine teardown allegedly showed a cracked cylinder head and cooling-system compression indicative of improper installation.
- Vicente sued Pinto’s for negligence, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment; Pinto’s answered and later moved for summary judgment.
- The parties agreed to an expert-disclosure deadline (June 14, 2017); Vicente designated Tri State’s service director (Pentedemos) as his expert, but his deposition revealed he was not qualified or willing to testify as an expert.
- The trial justice ruled expert testimony was required because the issues were beyond lay knowledge; Vicente filed an untimely amended expert disclosure without supporting affidavits or depositions.
- The Superior Court granted Pinto’s motion for summary judgment (Feb 2019) for failure to produce required expert evidence; the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert testimony was required to prove negligence, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment arising from alleged faulty repair | Vicente: expert not always required; breach-of-contract can be shown without expert | Pinto’s: expert required where technical matters are beyond common knowledge | Court: Expert required; Vicente failed to produce admissible expert proof; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether Vicente's expert disclosure (and later amended disclosure) was timely and sufficient | Vicente: he designated an expert and later amended; defendant's expert testimony speculative | Pinto’s: designated expert disavowed being an expert; amended disclosure untimely and unsupported | Court: Disclosure inadequate; designated witness not qualified; untimely amendment without affidavits insufficient |
| Whether defendant's expert disclosure deficiencies defeat summary judgment | Vicente: defendant's expert was speculative and therefore insufficient | Pinto’s: its disclosure irrelevant to plaintiff's burden to produce evidence | Court: Defendant’s disclosure irrelevant; burden remained on Vicente to produce admissible evidence |
| Whether the transaction should be treated as goods under the UCC (raised on appeal) | Vicente: argues for first time on appeal that UCC governs transaction for goods | Pinto’s: argument not preserved below | Court: Declined to consider new argument raised for first time on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Malinou v. Miriam Hospital, 24 A.3d 497 (R.I. 2011) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Rhode Island Insurers’ Insolvency Fund v. Leviton Manufacturing Co., 763 A.2d 590 (R.I. 2000) (summary-judgment review standard)
- Poulin v. Custom Craft, Inc., 996 A.2d 654 (R.I. 2010) (nonmoving party must show disputed material fact)
- Holley v. Argonaut Holdings, Inc., 968 A.2d 271 (R.I. 2009) (complete failure of proof on an essential element mandates judgment)
- Lavoie v. North East Knitting, Inc., 918 A.2d 225 (R.I. 2007) (same principle on failure of proof)
- Oliver v. Narragansett Bay Insurance Company, 205 A.3d 445 (R.I. 2019) (elements of negligence)
- Kemp v. PJC of Rhode Island, Inc., 184 A.3d 712 (R.I. 2018) (negligence elements)
- Fogarty v. Palumbo, 163 A.3d 526 (R.I. 2017) (elements of breach-of-contract claim)
- Cote v. Aiello, 148 A.3d 537 (R.I. 2016) (issues not raised at trial are not preserved on appeal)
- State v. Gomez, 848 A.2d 221 (R.I. 2004) (preservation rule for appellate review)