Toegemann v. City of Providence
2011 R.I. LEXIS 92
| R.I. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff Toegemann was in a September 20, 2007 car collision at the Adelaide Avenue and Melrose Street intersection in Providence.
- Plaintiff alleged the city negligently designed and maintained an unsafe intersection, including excessive speed and obstructed signs.
- Plaintiff sought damages for vehicle damage and emotional distress and requested corrective action at the intersection.
- The Superior Court granted the City of Providence summary judgment based on the public-duty doctrine after discovery and related motions.
- Plaintiff appealed pro se; the Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the matter de novo and upheld the summary judgment.
- The court held that traffic-sign placement is discretionary governmental activity protected by the public-duty doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether public-duty doctrine bars liability under §9-31-1. | Toegemann argues §9-31-1 abrogates sovereign immunity and imposes a duty. | City contends traffic design is discretionary and shielded by the public-duty doctrine. | Public-duty doctrine applies; no liability. |
| Whether §31-13-3 constrains city discretion in traffic-device placement. | §31-13-3 imposes mandatory guidelines the city must follow. | Statute is permissive; placement is discretionary. | Discretionary act; protected by public-duty doctrine. |
| Whether any exception to the public-duty doctrine applies here. | Exceptions exist for private duties, special duties, or egregious conduct. | None of the exceptions are satisfied by the facts. | No exception applies; immunity stands. |
| Whether the plaintiff raised a genuine issue of material fact defeating summary judgment. | Plaintiff contends there were undisputed design flaws and failures. | Record shows discretionary design; no material factual dispute. | No genuine issues of material fact; summary judgment proper. |
| Whether the denial of discovery warrants reversal. | Discovery issues were not adequately addressed with transcripts. | Record insufficient for meaningful review; standard requires record. | Rights waived; record deficiency supports affirmance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. City of Providence, 830 A.2d 1105 (R.I. 2003) (discretionary nature of traffic-sign placement under public-duty doctrine)
- Polaski v. O'Reilly, 559 A.2d 646 (R.I.1989) (placing traffic-control signals is discretionary)
- DeFusco v. Todesca Forte, Inc., 683 A.2d 363 (R.I.1996) (three exceptions to public-duty doctrine)
- Haley v. Town of Lincoln, 611 A.2d 845 (R.I.1992) (public-duty doctrine framework)
- Gagnon v. State, 570 A.2d 656 (R.I.1990) (public-duty doctrine limits municipal liability)
- Knudsen v. Hall, 490 A.2d 976 (R.I.1985) (limits of municipal liability under public duties)
- Ryan v. State Department of Transportation, 420 A.2d 841 (R.I.1980) (public-duty doctrine application to road design)