Roland DeMaio v. Raymond A. Ciccone
59 A.3d 125
| R.I. | 2013Background
- October 18, 2006 motorcycle collision on Hartford Avenue, Johnston, between DeMaio and Ciccone; Ciccone's car owned by Cheryl Breggia; DeMaio and spouse Linda filed suit June 18, 2007 against Ciccone and Breggia for negligence; defendants moved for summary judgment June 25, 2010 asserting DeMaio rear-ended the car; motion granted November 9, 2010 relying on a presumption of negligence from rear-end collisions; court considered conflicting depositions and evidence, including officer testimony and police photographs; Supreme Court reverses summary judgment, remanding for trial to resolve genuine issues of material fact about liability and whether the collision was in fact a rear-end event.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a genuine issue whether the collision was a rear-end event? | DeMaio testimony shows no car in front; photos and testimony raise doubt | Evidence shows DeMaio struck from rear; presumption applies | No; issue of rear-end collision for trial (fact dispute exists) |
| Is there conflicting evidence on who was negligent? | Plaintiff’s version contradicts defendant’s; jury should evaluate credibility | Rear-end collision establishes defendant’s non-liability if rear driver is at fault | Yes; facts present conflicting inferences for trial |
| Do photographs and evidence create triable issues about liability? | Photos show side damage consistent with non-rear-end impact | Police report supports rear-end theory | Yes; material facts remain in dispute for jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Maglioli v. J.P. Noonan Transportation, Inc., 869 A.2d 71 (R.I. 2005) (establishes prima facie negligence in rear-end context but requires rear-end fact)
- Gliottone v. Ethier, 870 A.2d 1022 (R.I. 2005) (negligence issues not suited for summary adjudication when conflicting inferences exist)
- DeNardo v. Fairmount Foundries Cranston, Inc., 121 R.I. 440, 399 A.2d 1229 (R.I. 1979) (negligence generally to be decided by trial unless only one reasonable inference)
- Pichardo v. Stevens, 55 A.3d 762 (R.I. 2012) (owner liability for acts of operator with owner’s consent; piercing agency concepts)
- Kennedy v. Providence Hockey Club, Inc., 119 R.I. 70, 376 A.2d 329 (R.I. 1977) (negligence issues not appropriate for summary judgment unless only one inference)
- Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Neary, 785 A.2d 1123 (R.I. 2001) (standard for evaluating summary judgment in light of conflicting inferences)
- Estate of Giuliano v. Giuliano, 949 A.2d 386 (R.I. 2008) (summary judgment and credibility concerns; issue finding not fact determining)
- Gelineau v. Doe, 732 A.2d 43 (R.I. 1999) (avoid credibility determinations at summary stage)
- Holley v. Argonaut Holdings, Inc., 968 A.2d 271 (R.I. 2009) (negligence ordinarily not by summary adjudication)
- Coyne v. Taber Partners I, 53 F.3d 454 (1st Cir. 1995) (summary judgment in presence of plausible conflicting inferences)
- Rachiele v. McGovern, 107 R.I. 241, 266 A.2d 36 (R.I. 1970) (rear-end context and prima facie evidence principles)
- Barnes v. Quality Beef Co., 425 A.2d 531 (R.I. 1981) (rear-end presumptions and negligence questions)