Joseph AUBIN v. MAG REALTY, LLC
161 A.3d 1143
| R.I. | 2017Background
- Joseph Aubin slipped on a patch of black ice in the paved parking area of his landlord MAG Realty’s apartment property on December 26, 2010, injuring his shoulder and later requiring surgery.
- Aubin sued MAG Realty for negligence and for violating the Residential Landlord Tenant Act’s requirement to keep common areas safe; trial occurred in December 2015.
- At trial Aubin presented testimony that the landlord plowed snow onto a grassy area above the parking lot, causing meltwater to run onto the pavement and refreeze as black ice; Mrs. Aubin testified there were snowdrifts and that Aubin had previously complained about ice on the lot.
- Defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 at close of evidence, arguing no evidence of landlord notice of the specific ice patch and invoking the Connecticut Rule regarding natural accumulations during a storm.
- The trial justice granted the Rule 50 motion and entered judgment for defendant; the Supreme Court vacated that judgment and remanded, concluding sufficient evidence (viewed in plaintiff’s favor) existed to submit notice and causation to a jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reasonable jury could find landlord had notice of dangerous black ice | Aubin: recurring melting/refreezing from snowbanks (plowed onto adjacent grass) and prior complaints put landlord on notice of the hazardous condition | MAG Realty: no evidence snowbanks existed at time of fall and no notice of that specific patch; Connecticut Rule may excuse duty during storm | Court: Evidence (Mrs. Aubin’s testimony about snowdrifts and prior complaints) must be credited on Rule 50 review; reasonable jury could find landlord had notice; vacated judgment |
| Whether landlord duty to keep common areas safe is displaced by Connecticut Rule here | Aubin: black ice formed prior night, not fresh snow; Connecticut Rule inapplicable | MAG Realty: substantial storm began Dec. 26; natural accumulation rule bars liability during/shortly after storm | Court: Assuming plaintiff’s allegation true that ice predated the storm, Connecticut Rule is inapplicable for purposes of review; case goes to jury |
| Whether trial justice should resolve causation/necessity of expert testimony as matter of law | Aubin: lay testimony on recurring melt/refreeze supports causal inference when viewed favorably | MAG Realty: causation requires expert proof about melting/freezing timing—trial evidence speculative | Court: On Rule 50 de novo review, court must draw all reasonable inferences for nonmoving party; here evidence sufficed to present causation to jury (no expert required at this stage) |
| Standard of review for Rule 50 motion | Aubin: apply de novo, view evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party | MAG Realty: same standard, argued evidence insufficient under it | Held: Court applied de novo Rule 50 standard and reversed trial court’s directed verdict for defendant |
Key Cases Cited
- Tancrelle v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp., 756 A.2d 744 (R.I. 2000) (landowner duty to discover and remedy dangerous conditions)
- Errico v. LaMountain, 713 A.2d 791 (R.I. 1998) (Residential Landlord Tenant Act supersedes conflicting common-law rules)
- Giron v. Bailey, 985 A.2d 1003 (R.I. 2009) (landlord obligations under statutory scheme)
- Lemont v. Estate of Ventura, 157 A.3d 31 (R.I. 2017) (Rule 50 de novo review and evidentiary standards)
- Hall v. City of Newport, 138 A.3d 814 (R.I. 2016) (fact issues vs. judgment as matter of law)
- Dawson v. Rhode Island Auditorium, Inc., 242 A.2d 407 (R.I. 1968) (notice may be inferred from prior general knowledge of recurring leaks/conditions)
- Benaski v. Weinberg, 899 A.2d 499 (R.I. 2006) (Connecticut Rule on natural accumulations of snow/ice)
- Berard v. HCP, Inc., 64 A.3d 1215 (R.I. 2013) (when negligence may be treated as matter of law)
- Scittarelli v. Providence Gas Co., 415 A.2d 1040 (R.I. 1980) (directed verdict appropriate when causation is speculative)
- Montuori v. Narragansett Electric Co., 418 A.2d 5 (R.I. 1980) (insufficient evidentiary basis for causation mandates directed verdict)