Peter Wyso v. Full Moon Tide, LLC.
78 A.3d 747
| R.I. | 2013Background
- On Sept. 6, 2007, plaintiff Peter Wyso tripped and fell on a cracked, uneven public sidewalk abutting 104 Water Street on Block Island and alleged resulting injuries.
- The abutting property is owned by Frederick and Deborah Howarth and leased to Full Moon Tide, LLC (collectively “defendants”).
- Wyso sued in Superior Court alleging negligence for failing to inspect, repair, and maintain the sidewalk; he later sought to amend to add a duty-to-warn claim (amendment granted as to the Howarths by rule).
- Full Moon Tide moved for summary judgment; the trial justice granted it, finding no duty owed and denying amendment as to Full Moon Tide; the Howarths later moved and obtained summary judgment on similar grounds.
- Wyso appealed, arguing genuine issues of material fact existed and that defendants breached a duty of care (including a duty to warn); the Supreme Court consolidated the appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants owed a duty to maintain the public sidewalk abutting their property | Wyso: defendants had a duty to maintain the abutting sidewalk and their breach caused his injuries | Defendants: property owners who did not create the defect owe no duty to repair or maintain public sidewalks | Court: No duty exists where owner did not create/control the defect; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether a municipal sidewalk-maintenance ordinance created a private duty | Wyso: the New Shoreham ordinance (Sec. 15(a)) imposes a duty to pedestrians | Defendants: the ordinance creates a duty to the town, not individual passersby | Court: Ordinance benefits the municipality, not individuals; no private duty created |
| Whether defendants owed a duty to warn of the sidewalk condition | Wyso: a duty to warn should be recognized (as to Howarths, after amendment) | Defendants: absent a duty to repair/maintain, no duty to warn exists | Court: No duty to warn where no underlying duty to maintain exists; claim fails |
| Whether genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment | Wyso: factual disputes about sidewalk condition and causation preclude judgment | Defendants: record does not show they created/controlled the defect; no triable issue on duty | Court: Viewing facts favorably to plaintiff, no material factual dispute on duty; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Berman v. Sitrin, 991 A.2d 1038 (R.I. 2010) (landowner abutting public way has no duty to repair or maintain it when not the cause of the defect)
- Banks v. Bowen's Landing Corp., 522 A.2d 1222 (R.I. 1987) (articulated multi-factor approach for duty analysis in premises-liability contexts)
- Saunders v. Howard Realty Co., 371 A.2d 274 (R.I. 1977) (property owner not obligated to repair defective sidewalk absent evidence owner caused the defect)
- Gillikin v. Metro Properties, Inc., 657 A.2d 1060 (R.I. 1995) (municipal ordinance does not create a private right/duty to maintain public sidewalks for individual passersby)
- Ohms v. State Department of Transportation, 764 A.2d 725 (R.I. 2001) (lessor of vehicle owed no duty to warn of dangerous conditions on public roadways)
- Ouch v. Khea, 963 A.2d 630 (R.I. 2009) (existence of duty is a question of law for the court, not the jury)