William Boggs v. Johnston Asphalt, LLC
2024-0091-Appeal.
R.I.May 22, 2025Background
- William Boggs was injured on August 9, 2016, while employed by All States Asphalt, Inc., when he was sprayed with liquid asphalt during a transfer between trucks in Framingham, Massachusetts.
- Boggs received workers’ compensation through All States for medical expenses and lost wages after the incident.
- Boggs sued Johnston Asphalt, LLC, alleging it was negligent in failing to maintain and inspect the truck, causing his injuries.
- Johnston Asphalt and All States Asphalt are separate legal entities; Johnston Asphalt’s only connection was leasing property used as All States’ repair shop.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment for Johnston Asphalt, finding no genuine issue of material fact as to its duty or involvement, and no basis to pierce the corporate veil.
- The Court affirmed the summary judgment decision on appeal, concluding there was insufficient evidence that Johnston Asphalt owed a duty or was involved in the vehicle’s maintenance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty of care owed by Johnston Asphalt | Johnston Asphalt owed a duty for truck maintenance; possible employment of mechanic Kelly by Johnston Asphalt | Johnston Asphalt had no involvement with the truck or Kelly; truck owned, maintained, and operated by All States | No duty owed by Johnston Asphalt; no evidence supporting duty or involvement |
| Existence of genuine issue of material fact | Kelly’s employment is disputed due to mail sent to him at Johnston Asphalt’s address | Evidence shows Kelly was an All States employee; single mail piece is not sufficient | No genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment appropriate |
| Piercing the corporate veil | Common ownership/lack of formality justifies piercing veil and reaching Johnston Asphalt’s owner | No basis or evidence to disregard separate corporate forms; owner not a defendant | No basis for veil piercing; burden not met by plaintiff |
| Workers’ Compensation bar | Workers’ Compensation Act does not bar claim if defendant is distinct third party | All States’ immunity under the Act extends to Johnston Asphalt via lack of duty or involvement | Workers’ Compensation Act bars additional recovery regardless of veil-piercing |
Key Cases Cited
- McAdam v. Grzelczyk, 911 A.2d 255 (R.I. 2006) (summary judgment reviewed de novo under same standard as trial court)
- Holley v. Argonaut Holdings, Inc., 968 A.2d 271 (R.I. 2009) (summary judgment proper where no duty exists)
- Mruk v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 82 A.3d 527 (R.I. 2013) (burden is on nonmovant to produce specific evidence defeating summary judgment)
- Lavoie v. North East Knitting Inc., 918 A.2d 225 (R.I. 2007) (summary judgment appropriate where essential element unsupported)
- Doe v. Gelineau, 732 A.2d 43 (R.I. 1999) (burden of proof on party seeking to pierce corporate veil)
- Young v. Warwick Rollermagic Skating Center, Inc., 973 A.2d 553 (R.I. 2009) (nonmoving party must counter summary judgment with competent evidence)