Ralph Mangiarelli, Jr. v. Town of Johnston, 289 A.3d 560

On July 28, 2016, Mangiarelli tripped at the rear entrance to Johnston Town Hall after reconstruction (2015) that installed new ramp, stairs, sidewalk, and a curb; no yellow striping or signage was in place at the time.
He suffered fractures and other injuries and the town later painted the curb edge yellow and placed cones/signs.
Mangiarelli sued the Town of Johnston (and municipal officers) for negligence, alleging an uneven/angled, unmarked curb constituted a dangerous condition and that the town failed to warn invitees.
At trial plaintiff testified and introduced photos and evidence of post-incident remediation; defendants rested without presenting evidence and moved for judgment as a matter of law arguing plaintiff presented no evidence of the applicable standard of care and that expert proof was needed.
The jury returned a verdict for defendants; the trial justice denied plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, finding insufficient evidence that the curb was defective and concluding any instructional imprecision was harmless or waived.
Plaintiff appealed only the denial of the motion for a new trial; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial justice improperly instructed the jury to decide if a duty existed	Mangiarelli: jury was led to decide duty, a question of law for the court, causing confusion	Town: the verdict form assumed duty existed and the jury was asked only about breach, curing any oral imprecision	Court: No error — instructions read as whole and verdict form made breach the jury question; duty is a question of law but the form established that duty was assumed
Whether omission of the word “fair” from “fair preponderance of the evidence” on verdict form was reversible error	Mangiarelli: omission changed burden language and prejudiced him	Town: plaintiff failed to object to the verdict form before deliberations (raise-or-waive)	Court: Waived for failure to object; preserved oral instruction used “fair preponderance,” and no reversible error is shown
Whether expert testimony was required to show the curb’s angle constituted a dangerous/defective condition	Mangiarelli: angle was within ordinary juror’s ken; expert not required	Town: no evidence showed the curb deviated from standard of care — expert testimony required for technical matters	Court: Expert testimony required where matter is beyond common knowledge; plaintiff presented no evidence of the proper/required curb angle or deviation — no basis for new trial

Yi Gu v. Rhode Island Public Transit Authority, 38 A.3d 1093 (R.I. 2012) (trial justice as “superjuror” weighing credibility and evidence on a new-trial motion)
Riley v. Stone, 900 A.2d 1087 (R.I. 2006) (jury instructions reviewed de novo and must be read in context)
Berman v. Sitrin, 991 A.2d 1038 (R.I. 2010) (existence of duty is a question of law for the court)
Mills v. State Sales, Inc., 824 A.2d 461 (R.I. 2003) (expert testimony required for matters beyond common knowledge)
Morales v. Town of Johnston, 895 A.2d 721 (R.I. 2006) (plaintiff must prove specific acts/omissions showing deviation from standard of care)
E.T. Investments, LLC v. Riley, 262 A.3d 673 (R.I. 2021) (raise-or-waive rule for objections not made at trial)