Tara J. Cancel, as Administratrix of the Estate of Ira Lukens v. City of Providence, 187 A.3d 347

On June 9, 2014, Ira Lukens struck a pothole while bicycling in Roger Williams Park and was thrown from his bike; Tara J. Cancel sued as administratrix of his estate alleging negligence and willful/malicious failure to warn, inspect, or repair.
The park is open to the public free of charge and bicycling is a recreational use under the Recreational Use Statute (RUS), so RUS immunity generally applies to the City of Providence.
Plaintiff amended to assert that the § 32-6-5(a)(1) exception (willful or malicious failure to warn after discovering the user’s peril) applies, relying on depositions of park officials Joseph Salem and Robert McMahon and photographs of the pothole.
Salem testified there was no fixed roadway inspection schedule; McMahon testified he drove over the road several times per week but denied knowledge of the pothole.
The Superior Court granted summary judgment for the city; plaintiff appealed arguing genuine issues of material fact exist as to the city’s knowledge of the defect and willful failure to warn or guard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether RUS immunity is overcome by § 32-6-5(a)(1) (willful/malicious failure to warn after discovering peril)	RUS exception applies because park officials regularly traveled the area and photographs show a hazardous pothole, so the city knew or should have known and willfully failed to warn	City argued RUS applies and plaintiff has no competent evidence the city knew of the specific pothole, received complaints, or had prior incidents putting it on notice	Held for city: plaintiff failed to show genuine issue of material fact that city discovered the peril or willfully/maliciously failed to warn; summary judgment affirmed

Newstone Development, LLC v. East Pacific, LLC, 140 A.3d 100 (R.I. 2016) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Daniels v. Fluette, 64 A.3d 302 (R.I. 2013) (nonmoving party’s burden to show disputed material facts)
Berman v. Sitrin, 991 A.2d 1038 (R.I. 2010) (interpreting § 32-6-5(a)(1) and finding RUS inapplicable where landowner had notice of repeated serious incidents)
Cain v. Johnson, 755 A.2d 156 (R.I. 2000) (duty to trespasser arises only after discovery in position of peril)
Carlson v. Town of South Kingstown, 111 A.3d 819 (R.I. 2015) (refusing to apply § 32-6-5(a)(1) where no evidence town knew of the specific defect or similar prior injuries)
Lacey v. Reitsma, 899 A.2d 455 (R.I. 2006) (§ 32-6-5(a)(1) inapplicable absent evidence defendants discovered plaintiff in peril or knew of the specific danger)