Pereira v. Fitzgerald
21 A.3d 369
| R.I. | 2011Background
- Pereira injured stepping onto grass and into a five-inch-deep defect at Kent Heights Park, owned and controlled by the City of East Providence.
- Park was open to the public; soccer field was reserved for youth games, but the rest of the park remained accessible without charge.
- Pereira observed a soccer game as a spectator and then walked back toward her car, deviating from a walkway.
- Plaintiff filed suit in February 2008 alleging negligent maintenance and failure to warn; city asserted immunity under Rhode Island’s Recreational Use Statute (RUS).
- Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the city, applying the RUS to immunize the municipality.
- Pereira appeals, arguing the RUS does not immunize as owner, disputes recreational purpose, and challenges public access to the park area in question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether municipalities enjoy immunity under the Recreational Use Statute when injury occurs on property they own. | Pereira argues owner status (not control) limits immunity. | City contends immunity extends to municipalities via owner definition. | Immunity extends to state/municipal owners. |
| Whether Pereira’s activity qualifies as a recreational purpose under the statute. | She was only a spectator, not engaged in recreation. | Nature and scope of activity determine recreational status, not participant role. | Spectator status does not defeat recreational use immunity. |
| Whether the park was open to the public for recreational purposes at the time of injury. | Argues areas used for the game were not open to the public. | Overall park open to public for recreational activity; Morales distinction not controlling. | Park open to public for recreational activity; RU statute applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hanley v. State, 837 A.2d 707 (R.I. 2003) (definition of 'owner' and scope of recreational use immunity broadened to include state/municipal owners)
- Labedz v. State, 919 A.2d 415 (R.I. 2007 (mem.)) (recognizes immunity for state property under RU statute)
- Smiler v. Napolitano, 911 A.2d 1035 (R.I. 2006) (reiterates focus on premises open to public for recreational activity)
- Cruz v. City of Providence, 908 A.2d 405 (R.I. 2006) (applies RU statute to municipal property; confirms owner interpretation)
- Lacey v. Reitsma, 899 A.2d 455 (R.I. 2006) (further confirms RU statute pollution of owner concepts extends to municipalities)
- Morales v. Town of Johnston, 895 A.2d 721 (R.I. 2006) (distinguishes Morales; not controlling when park areas are open to public for recreation)