Kathleen Carlson v. Town of South Kingstown
111 A.3d 819
R.I.2015Background
- On July 28, 2010, Kathleen Carlson attended her son’s public little-league championship game at Tuckertown Park, a town-owned park in South Kingstown. She was a spectator in a public area near batting cages.
- While walking after the game, Carlson’s ankle fell into a ground "divot" (disputed size), and she suffered a broken leg. The hole was filled the day after the incident.
- The league had a permit to use the field; no admission fee was charged to spectators and the town charged no fee to enter the park. The league is a nonprofit and the town maintains the park (regular maintenance twice weekly).
- Carlson sued the Town alleging negligent maintenance of the premises. The Town moved for summary judgment invoking Rhode Island’s Recreational Use Statute (RUS), G.L. 1956 chapter 32-6.
- Carlson argued three points: (1) RUS does not apply to her type of use; (2) the § 32-6-5(a)(1) willful-or-malicious exception applies; and (3) the § 32-6-5(a)(2) charge exception applies because of league fees or taxpayer status. The Superior Court granted summary judgment for the Town; Carlson appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the RUS applies to Carlson’s use of the town park | Carlson contends her spectator use is not the kind of use RUS covers (relying on Morales) | Town argues the area was open to the public for recreational purposes and RUS applies (relying on Pereira) | RUS applies: spectator use in a public park is covered; Morales was distinguishable |
| Whether § 32-6-5(a)(1) (willful or malicious failure to guard/warn) defeats immunity | Carlson says facts about recurring holes create a triable issue that Town acted willfully/maliciously | Town says it had no notice of the specific hole or pattern of injuries and did not know of a strong likelihood of serious harm | Exception inapplicable: no evidence Town knew of this particular hazard or a known, substantial risk requiring affirmative duty |
| Whether § 32-6-5(a)(2) (owner charges users) defeats immunity | Carlson argues she effectively paid (league fee or taxes) and thus was charged to use the land | Town says no admission fee or charge was required to enter the park; league fees and taxes do not constitute a charge under the RUS | Exception inapplicable: "charge" requires a fee imposed in return for recreational use; neither league fees nor taxpayer status qualify |
Key Cases Cited
- Pereira v. Fitzgerald, 21 A.3d 369 (2011) (spectator injured in a city park — RUS applied)
- Berman v. Sitrin, 991 A.2d 1038 (2010) (municipal duty found where municipality had repeated, known, catastrophic risk)
- Morales v. Town of Johnston, 895 A.2d 721 (2006) (RUS inapplicable where land was reserved for school-sponsored activity and not open to public)
- Hanley v. State, 837 A.2d 707 (2003) (fee qualifies as a “charge” only if imposed in return for recreational use)
- Smiler v. Napolitano, 911 A.2d 1035 (2006) (discussion of municipal expansion of RUS immunity)