Maureen O'Connell v. William Walmsley
156 A.3d 422
| R.I. | 2017Background
- On March 9, 2003, high-speed racing caused Jason Goffe’s car to cross into oncoming traffic and collide with an eastbound vehicle driven by William Walmsley; two occupants (including Brendan O’Connell Roberti) died.
- Plaintiffs (Roberti’s parents, co-administrators) sued multiple defendants; plaintiffs settled with Donald Goffe/GEICO for $145,000 and with Michael Petrarca/Tapco for $250,000 (total $395,000), each release reducing recoverable claims by the settlor’s pro rata share or the settlement amount.
- At trial Walmsley was found negligent but only 3% at fault; jury awarded $10,000 against Walmsley; trial judge later granted Walmsley judgment as a matter of law; this Court vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
- On remand plaintiffs sought entry of a $250,000 additur under G.L. 1956 § 10-7-2 (wrongful-death statutory minimum); Walmsley moved for summary judgment arguing that the prior releases and § 10-6-7 reduce any obligation and that plaintiffs already received more than the statutory minimum.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment for Walmsley, holding that § 10-7-2’s $250,000 minimum applies per claim (not per defendant), that releases totaling $395,000 satisfied the minimum, and that § 10-6-7 governs reductions for joint tortfeasor releases.
- The Supreme Court affirmed, holding statutory construction must effectuate the remedial purpose of the Wrongful Death Act, avoiding absurd results of a per-defendant minimum and harmonizing § 10-7-2 with § 10-6-7.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 10-7-2’s $250,000 statutory minimum applies per defendant (each tortfeasor) or per claim (per wrongful-death claim) | § 10-7-2 uses singular language and “shall,” so each defendant must be liable for at least $250,000 | The minimum is remedial and compensatory and should apply per claim; prior settlements can satisfy the minimum | The Court held the $250,000 minimum applies per claim (not per defendant); singular terms can include the plural and a per-defendant rule would produce absurd results and defeat legislative intent |
| Whether releases and § 10-6-7 reduce a remaining defendant’s liability despite § 10-7-2’s minimum | § 10-7-2 is a special provision that should prevail over the general § 10-6-7; releases cannot reduce the $250,000 minimum owed by each defendant | § 10-6-7 governs the effect of one tortfeasor’s release and reduces claims against other tortfeasors; prior settlements totaling more than $250,000 satisfy the minimum | The Court harmonized the statutes: § 10-6-7 reduces the claim against remaining tortfeasors by the amount of settlement consideration; plaintiffs’ $395,000 in releases satisfied the statutory minimum, so Walmsley owed nothing further |
Key Cases Cited
- O’Connell v. Walmsley, 93 A.3d 60 (R.I. 2014) (prior appellate opinion addressing the case facts)
- Petro v. Town of West Warwick ex rel. Moore, 889 F. Supp. 2d 292 (D.R.I. 2012) (interpreting § 10-7-2 in context of joint tortfeasors and settlements)
- Presley v. Newport Hospital, 365 A.2d 748 (R.I. 1976) (discussing Wrongful Death Act’s compensatory purpose)
- Simeone v. Charron, 762 A.2d 442 (R.I. 2000) (noting Wrongful Death Act is remedial and its interpretation should effectuate purpose)
- Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Pelchat, 727 A.2d 676 (R.I. 1999) (statutory interpretation: avoid literal readings that produce absurd results)