Patricia Sullo v. David Greenberg
2013 R.I. LEXIS 95
| R.I. | 2013Background
- Patricia Sullo, a patient of David Greenberg, fell on the entrance ramp to Greenberg’s podiatry office during a winter storm in November 2007.
- Sullo used the ramp with crutches and a soft cast; the route involved two ramps and a wooden walkway to the door.
- Weather was described as a mix of rain and snow with the surface wet; Sullo testified there was no slushy accumulation, though snowfall occurred.
- Greenberg’s staff helped Sullo into the building after the fall; he did not examine her on that visit and later treated her medically.
- Sullo filed suit in August 2010 alleging negligent maintenance of the walkway; Greenberg moved for summary judgment, which was granted on November 15, 2011.
- The Rhode Island Supreme Court vacated the summary judgment and remanded for further factual development, addressing the Connecticut Rule and duty standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the storm constituted a snowstorm triggering the Connecticut Rule | Sullo argues there was snow accumulation or conditions invoking the rule. | Greenberg contends no applicable accumulation; surface was wet due to rain/snow mix. | Genuine factual issue exists; summary judgment error. |
| Whether Sullo, as patient, owed a heightened duty of care by Greenberg | Physician status creates heightened duty of care for premises safety. | No heightened duty; physician status does not elevate invitee standard for the entranceway. | No heightened duty; duty remains that of a business invitor and physician in medical treatment, respectively. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fuller v. Housing Authority of Providence, 108 R.I. 770 (R.I. 1971) (adopts Connecticut Rule; time to treat after storm)
- Benaski v. Weinberg, 899 A.2d 499 (R.I. 2006) (Connecticut Rule duty; not catch flakes before ground)
- Barenbaum v. Richardson, 114 R.I. 87 (R.I. 1974) (Connecticut Rule applies to ongoing storms)
- Terry v. Central Auto Radiators, Inc., 732 A.2d 713 (R.I. 1999) (unusual circumstances trigger heightened duty)
- Ouch v. Khea, 963 A.2d 630 (R.I. 2009) (legal duty analysis; duty arises from case facts)
- Willis v. Omar, 954 A.2d 126 (R.I. 2008) (duty analysis; no new frontier in social-host liability)
- Berardis v. Louangxay, 969 A.2d 1288 (R.I. 2009) (connects duty and factual context in premises cases)