Kathleen Carlson v. Town of South Kingstown
131 A.3d 705
R.I.2016Background
- Plaintiff Kathleen Carlson fractured her leg after her ankle fell into a divot at Tuckertown Field while spectating a South Kingstown Little League game organized by defendant South Kingstown Little League.
- The park/field was owned, maintained, and inspected by the Town of South Kingstown; the town filled the divot the day after the injury.
- A witness (a parent and former assistant coach) described the divots as about 6–8 inches across and 8–10 inches deep and testified divots were a "repetitive problem" caused by players' cleats near the batting cages.
- The league paid no fee to use the field, had no formal inspection or maintenance obligations, and its representatives testified they would inform the town if they observed defects but did not control or maintain the park.
- Plaintiff sued the league for negligence alleging a duty to inspect, repair, or warn; the Superior Court granted the league’s summary-judgment motion, concluding the league owed no duty to maintain/treat the town’s property.
- On appeal the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, holding the league did not own, operate, or control the area where the injury occurred and therefore owed no duty of care.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether league owed a duty to plaintiff for injuries on park owned by town | Carlson: league had a duty to inspect, repair, or warn of known dangerous conditions (divots) when hosting games | League: no ownership, control, or maintenance responsibility for the park; town alone maintained it | Held: No duty — league did not own, operate, or control the area where injury occurred, so summary judgment proper |
| Whether repetitive creation of divots by players could impose duty on league | Carlson: repetitive, player-caused divots made the league more than a mere user; fairness/relationship factors require a duty to warn or remedy | League: still lacked control or authority to maintain/repair or exclude access; responsibility rested with town | Held: Court rejected this argument — evidence showed town had exclusive maintenance/control; dissent argued factual dispute warranted trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Carlson v. Town of South Kingstown, 111 A.3d 819 (R.I. 2015) (prior decision in related proceedings addressing duty questions)
- Woodruff v. Gitlow, 91 A.3d 805 (R.I. 2014) (ad hoc, multi-factor approach to existence of duty)
- Wyso v. Full Moon Tide, LLC, 78 A.3d 747 (R.I. 2013) (existence of duty is question of law; no duty where defendant lacked control)
- Berman v. Sitrin, 991 A.2d 1038 (R.I. 2010) (no duty where property owner lacked control over easement area)
- Ouch v. Khea, 963 A.2d 630 (R.I. 2009) (duty is threshold legal question before factual determinations)