126 A.3d 421
R.I.2015Background
- In 2003, minor Michaela Symonds was injured by a wooden splinter while playing on a wooden jungle gym in Slater Memorial Park, Pawtucket.
- Symonds’ mother reported the injury to the city Parks & Recreation Dept.; the department employee told her the department did not believe it was responsible for maintaining the jungle gym.
- The jungle gym was replaced with non-wood material 12–16 months after the report. Symonds sued the City of Pawtucket alleging negligence and later alleged willful or malicious failure to guard or warn under the Recreational Use Statute (RUS) exception.
- Defendants invoked the RUS, asserting immunity because the park was open for recreational use and they lacked willful or malicious conduct or prior notice of danger; they moved for summary judgment.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment for the city, finding no evidence of prior notice or wanton/willful conduct; Symonds appealed and the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of RUS immunity | Symonds: jungle gym’s deteriorated, splintered condition and the city’s post-injury conduct (employee comment, later replacement) show notice and willfulness, bringing case within §32-6-5(a)(1) exception | City: park is a recreational facility entitled to RUS immunity; no evidence city knew of the dangerous condition before Symonds’s injury, so no willful/malicious failure to guard or warn | The RUS applies; exception inapplicable because city had no notice of the defect before the injury and no evidence of willful or malicious conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Berman v. Sitrin, 991 A.2d 1038 (2010) (RUS exception may apply where landowner had prior knowledge from multiple similar incidents and still failed to guard or warn)
- Smiler v. Napolitano, 911 A.2d 1035 (2006) (RUS reduces landowner duty by treating recreational users akin to trespassers)
- Hanley v. State, 837 A.2d 707 (R.I. 2003) (Legislature intended to include municipalities among those entitled to RUS immunity)
- Cain v. Johnson, 755 A.2d 156 (2000) (RUS immunity applies where governmental entity lacked notice of a dangerous condition)
- Carlson v. South Kingstown, 111 A.3d 819 (2015) (RUS exception inapplicable where town had no knowledge of the specific defect or similar prior injuries)