Victoria Roach v. State of Rhode Island
157 A.3d 1042
| R.I. | 2017Background
- Roach, a per-diem nurse at the Rhode Island Veterans Home, slipped on liquid in a unit bathroom on Nov. 10, 2008, injuring her knee and later requiring surgery and reduced work hours.
- Trial jury (March 2014) returned $500,000; trial justice reduced award by remittitur to $382,000, with prejudgment interest raising judgment to $631,373.66.
- Defendant: State of Rhode Island (and Director of Human Services in official capacity). State moved for judgment as a matter of law, new trial, remittitur, and sought application of sovereign-immunity doctrines and statutory damage cap.
- Key disputed facts: source and timing of the liquid (housekeeping, CNAs, or visitors); range of access to the bathroom; whether routine inspections would have revealed spill.
- Trial court denied Rule 50 motions, found public-duty doctrine inapplicable, held Veterans Home was performing proprietary functions so § 9-31-2 cap did not apply, and awarded prejudgment interest; state appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public-duty doctrine (sovereign immunity) | Activity was ordinary patient-care work; not discretionary governmental function | Veterans Home is a statutorily created state institution; public-duty doctrine bars tort liability | Public-duty doctrine inapplicable; care functions are like private nursing-home tasks and not discretionary governmental functions — liability allowed |
| Statutory tort-cap (§ 9-31-2) | Veterans Home performed proprietary functions (patient care, housekeeping) so cap does not apply | Home is a creature of statute; maintenance/operation is governmental and cap limits damages to $100,000 | Cap inapplicable: patient-care/housekeeping are proprietary (private actors perform same tasks) so full damages allowed |
| Prejudgment interest | Interest statutory and ministerial once damages reduced to judgment; applies when function is proprietary | Andrade and related decisions limit interest against the State; no request for interest was made | Prejudgment interest proper: proprietary-function exception applies and § 9-21-10 interest is ministerial even if plaintiff did not move for it |
| Judgment as matter of law & jury instructions (comparative negligence) | Sufficient circumstantial evidence that CNAs/housekeeping left liquid; no clear comparative-negligence theory from State | Plaintiff failed to exclude other causes; insufficient proof to let jury infer state employees’ negligence; requested comparative-neg instruction should have been given | Denial of JMOL affirmed — evidence allowed reasonable inference of state-employee responsibility; refusal to give comparative-neg instruction affirmed because State failed to articulate a clear theory at trial (appellate court will not consider new theory raised on appeal) |
Key Cases Cited
- Becker v. Beaudoin, 261 A.2d 896 (R.I. 1970) (abrogated common-law sovereign immunity in Rhode Island)
- Calhoun v. City of Providence, 390 A.2d 350 (R.I. 1978) (recognized public-duty doctrine limiting liability despite Tort Claims Act)
- O’Brien v. State, 555 A.2d 334 (R.I. 1989) (public-duty doctrine applies to discretionary governmental functions)
- Lepore v. Rhode Island Public Transit Authority, 524 A.2d 574 (R.I. 1987) (prejudgment interest and damages cap analysis depends on proprietary vs. governmental function)
- Adams v. State, 973 A.2d 542 (R.I. 2009) (focus on the actual function: non-unique tasks like storage/distribution of food are proprietary despite statutory program)
- Graff v. Motta, 695 A.2d 486 (R.I. 1997) (defines proprietary functions as actions normally performed by private individuals)
- Andrade v. State, 448 A.2d 1293 (R.I. 1982) (prejudgment interest generally not recoverable against the State absent proprietary-function exception)
- Matarese v. Dunham, 689 A.2d 1057 (R.I. 1997) (maintenance of government buildings treated as governmental function; discussed in dissent arguing cap should apply)