205 A.3d 445
R.I.2019Background
- In March–May 2012 Laura Gear purchased an above‑ground pool and a “Slide & Lock” A‑Frame ladder from NAMCO; NAMCO gave her a printed list of local installers and told her she was not required to use them.
- Gear contacted Lot‑2 Enterprises (an installer on the list); Lot‑2 installed the pool on May 21, 2012 (no town permit was obtained); Gear’s friend assembled the ladder.
- On May 27, 2012, four‑year‑old Nicholas Gear drowned after gaining access to the pool while Gear was briefly away.
- Plaintiffs sued multiple defendants, alleging negligence, including that NAMCO and/or its authorized agent negligently installed the pool and ladder.
- NAMCO moved for summary judgment, arguing (inter alia) it did not install the pool, Lot‑2 was not its agent, NAMCO had no duty to warn, and its conduct was not the proximate cause of the death.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment for NAMCO; the Supreme Court vacated and remanded, finding genuine issues of material fact on agency and duty-to‑vet issues and pleading deficiencies as to a failure‑to‑warn claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NAMCO negligently failed to warn Gear about ladder safety/locking mechanism | Gear was not adequately informed orally/demonstratively about ladder safety; NAMCO should have warned beyond manufacturer-written materials | NAMCO contends written manufacturer instructions sufficed and it had no duty absent reason to know of hidden danger; also no pleading alleging failure‑to‑warn | Court: Plaintiffs did not plead a failure‑to‑warn claim against NAMCO in their complaints; the Court therefore declined to address the substantive failure‑to‑warn arguments on appeal |
| Whether Lot‑2 was NAMCO’s agent (apparent/inherent agency) making NAMCO liable for negligent installation | Gear reasonably believed installers on NAMCO’s list were NAMCO’s subcontractors/agents; NAMCO inspected installations and controlled placement on the list | NAMCO argued it did not install the pool, did not exercise control, and had no duty as principal; apparent agency doctrine inapplicable | Court: Genuine factual dispute exists about whether Lot‑2 acted as NAMCO’s agent or whether Gear reasonably believed so; agency is a question for the factfinder; summary judgment improper |
| Whether NAMCO had a duty to vet/supervise installers on its provided list | NAMCO owed a duty to include only qualified installers and to vet/supervise those it listed, creating foreseeability and closeness of connection to harm | NAMCO argued no such duty existed and the hearing justice correctly found no duty to supervise/vet the listed installers | Court: Whether NAMCO owed a duty depends on disputed threshold facts (e.g., nature of the list, relationship to installers); factual disputes preclude resolution on summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Amway Corporation, 488 A.2d 716 (R.I. 1985) (in negligence, duty to warn exists only if defendant had reason to know of dangerous propensities)
- Kemp v. PJC of Rhode Island, Inc., 184 A.3d 712 (R.I. 2018) (elements of negligence and duty as threshold legal question)
- DeLong v. Rhode Island Sports Center, Inc., 182 A.3d 1129 (R.I. 2018) (negligence issues typically for jury; summary judgment disfavored in negligence cases)
- Konar v. PFL Life Insurance Company, 840 A.2d 1115 (R.I. 2004) (liberal approach to pleadings; complaint must give fair notice of claim)
- Cayer v. Cox Rhode Island Telecom, LLC, 85 A.3d 1140 (R.I. 2014) (apparent authority can create principal liability when principal’s conduct induces reliance)