157 A.3d 567
R.I.2017Background
- Plaintiff Stephen Limoges, a state facilities manager, alleges inhalation injury from a bromine leak at the Garrahy Judicial Complex on August 8, 2008, after a pipe carrying bromine into the HVAC system ruptured.
- Plaintiffs sued Nalco, Arden Engineering Constructors, LLC (Arden), and JMB Mechanical for negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty; JMB later obtained summary judgment (no appeal).
- Arden moved for summary judgment; the hearing justice granted summary judgment on strict liability and breach-of-warranty unopposed and later granted summary judgment on negligence after questioning plaintiffs’ expert affidavit.
- Plaintiffs filed an expert engineer’s affidavit shortly before the second hearing, asserting Arden likely caused or should have discovered a crack in the piping when it replaced chillers in 2006.
- The hearing justice expressed skepticism about the expert’s affidavit, made statements undermining its credibility, and granted Arden’s motion; plaintiffs appealed.
- The Supreme Court vacated the Superior Court judgment, holding that the expert affidavit and other record evidence raised genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment and that credibility determinations were improper at that stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment on negligence was appropriate | Limoges: expert affidavit establishes duty/breach and raises triable issues about Arden’s role in 2006 chiller work | Arden: affidavit is conclusory, unsupported by facts; no record showing Arden caused or worked on the specific defective pipe | Vacated: affidavit plus other record evidence create material factual disputes; summary judgment improper |
| Whether the trial justice improperly assessed credibility at summary judgment | Limoges: court erred by discrediting expert rather than drawing inferences for nonmoving party | Arden: court permissibly found affidavit speculative and unsupported | Held for Limoges: summary judgment stage is not for credibility determinations; issues must be left for trial |
| Whether plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence to show Arden owed/ breached duty | Limoges: expert testimony and plaintiff’s interrogatory/deposition support that Arden installed or knew of wrong pipe | Arden: no specific evidence tying Arden to the pipe or crack | Held: disputed facts (interrogatory, deposition, expert affidavit) suffice to raise triable issues |
| Appropriate remedy | Limoges: reversal and remand for trial | Arden: affirm summary judgment | Held: vacate Superior Court judgment and remand for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Tri-Town Construction Co. v. Commerce Park Associates 12, LLC, 139 A.3d 467 (R.I. 2016) (summary-judgment review de novo)
- Plunkett v. State, 869 A.2d 1185 (R.I. 2005) (summary judgment proper only when no genuine issue of material fact)
- National Refrigeration, Inc. v. Standen Contracting Co., 942 A.2d 968 (R.I. 2008) (nonmoving party’s evidence must show disputed material facts)
- Hall v. City of Newport, 138 A.3d 814 (R.I. 2016) (duty is a question of law; other negligence elements are factual)
- DeMaio v. Ciccone, 59 A.3d 125 (R.I. 2013) (trial court may not make credibility determinations at summary judgment)