Simcha Berman v. Laura Sitrin, in her capacity as Finance Director for the City of Newport
101 A.3d 1251
| R.I. | 2014Background
- On August 17, 2000, Simcha Berman fell from a beaten path abutting Newport’s Cliff Walk and became a quadriplegic. He and his then-wife sued multiple defendants, including the State of Rhode Island.
- After summary-judgment motions, the Preservation Society of Newport County and the City of Newport were dismissed (in part affirmed on appeal in Berman I); the State remained as sole defendant at trial in Superior Court.
- Plaintiffs claimed negligent inspection/maintenance and failure to warn; the State defended by emphasizing its limited role and by implicating the city and other entities.
- At trial the jury viewed the site, evidence about the city’s liability insurance was admitted for ownership/control, and a 1987 letter about a prior Cliff Walk death was excluded as hearsay/lacking similarity. Plaintiffs settled with the city and commission before verdict.
- The jury returned a verdict for the State (no negligence). The trial justice denied posttrial motions for JMOL, new trial, and Rule 60(b) relief; plaintiffs appealed and the State cross-appealed.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court judgment, rejecting plaintiffs’ challenges to venue/venire, the jury view, evidentiary rulings, jury instructions (most unpreserved), and the posttrial relief motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Change of venue/venire based on pretrial publicity | Publicity in Newport biased potential jurors and warranted transfer | Publicity was insufficient; no clear and convincing evidence of countywide prejudice | Denial affirmed; abuse of discretion not shown |
| Jury view procedure and changed site conditions | View created confusion/prejudiced plaintiffs; objection preserved | View was within court discretion and jurors were instructed the view was not evidence | No reversible error; view proper and cautionary instruction adequate |
| Admissibility of evidence: society ownership, 1987 letter, city insurance | Object to testimony on society/control, exclusion of McKillop letter, and informing jury of city insurance | State argued testimony relevant to control, letter was hearsay/not similar, insurance admissible for ownership or opened door | Testimony not prejudicial (partly plaintiffs’ own witness); letter exclusion affirmed; limited insurance instruction proper |
| Jury instructions and law-of-the-case (application of Berman I) | Trial court failed to apply Berman I (e.g., instruct society had no duty; state had assumed duty) | Trial court followed Berman I’s holdings insofar as applicable and allowed factual issues to go to jury | Most objections were unpreserved; court’s application of Berman I and charge were proper; verdict stands |
| JMOL / New trial / Vacation (Rule 60) | Evidence was insufficient for jury verdict; newly discovered signs/installations show misrepresentation/fraud | Credible factual disputes existed; new evidence not material or discoverable with diligence; no fraud shown | JMOL denied; new trial and Rule 60(b) relief denied; trial justice did not abuse discretion |
| State cross-appeal (entitlement to immunity / public duty / need for expert) | (State) Trial should not have reached jury; immunity and pleading/ proof defects barred case | Plaintiffs presented issues for factfinder; State got a favorable verdict | Court declined to reach these issues further because verdict favored State; cross-appeal not pursued further |
Key Cases Cited
- Berman v. Sitrin, 991 A.2d 1038 (R.I. 2010) (prior decision addressing summary-judgment posture and duties re: Cliff Walk)
- DiMaio v. Del Sesto, 228 A.2d 861 (R.I. 1967) (court discretion to grant jury views)
- State v. Burns, 84 A.2d 801 (R.I. 1951) (standard for change of venue/venire — clear and convincing proof of prejudice)
- Gianquitti v. Atwood Medical Associates, Ltd., 973 A.2d 580 (R.I. 2009) (standard of review and law for judgment as a matter of law)
- Botelho v. Caster’s, Inc., 970 A.2d 541 (R.I. 2009) (trial justice as "super juror" on new-trial motions; standard and deference)
- Oden v. Schwartz, 71 A.3d 438 (R.I. 2013) (Rule 411 and review of jury instructions regarding evidence of insurance)