125 A.3d 130
R.I.2015Background
- On Feb. 14, 2007, while being escorted on foot to a prison education building at the Adult Correctional Institutions (ACI), Willie Battle slipped entering the building during rainy/melting-snow conditions and suffered a serious back injury requiring surgery.
- Battle sued the State of Rhode Island for negligence (filed Feb. 26, 2009), alleging the State failed to maintain the premises safely. The case went to jury trial in May 2013.
- Plaintiff presented correctional officers who testified that mats, "wet floor" signs, inmate porters to mop, and verbal warnings were routinely used on rainy days; a teacher witness testified she had slipped near the entrance on a previous rainy day; Battle testified he did not recall warnings or seeing porters and disputed that the floor mat was a mat.
- The State presented no witnesses; the jury returned a verdict for the State finding no negligence. Battle moved for a new trial and additur; the trial justice denied relief after acting as a "superjuror" and weighing witness credibility and evidence.
- Post-verdict, Battle for the first time argued the State should be strictly liable under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 520 (abnormally dangerous activity). The trial justice rejected that theory and the Supreme Court affirmed, holding the strict-liability claim was waived and the new-trial denial was supported by the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial justice erred in denying motion for new trial | Battle argued jury verdict was against weight of evidence; alleged bias against him as an inmate and claimed a "forced march" created extra danger | State argued evidence supported jury verdict; routine movement of inmates and safety measures existed | Denial affirmed — trial justice properly weighed credibility and evidence and reasonably agreed with jury |
| Whether a "forced march" occurred creating increased liability | Battle claimed guards rushed inmates, creating unsafe conditions | State and trial justice said transport was routine, not coercive; record lacks support for "forced march" | Claim lacks foundation; not supported by testimony |
| Whether Battle preserved strict-liability (abnormally dangerous activity) claim | Battle argued post-verdict that moving inmates through wet entry was abnormally dangerous and warrants strict liability under Restatement § 520 | State argued issue was not raised at trial and is therefore waived | Waived — issue raised for first time after verdict and barred by raise-or-waive rule |
| Even if preserved, whether moving inmates into a wet entrance is an abnormally dangerous activity | Battle suggested risks could not be eliminated by mats, signs, warnings, or cleanup | State noted commonplace nature of pedestrian tracking water and availability of ordinary precautions | Court noted Restatement examples (atomic energy, explosives, etc.) and concluded commonplace activity differs qualitatively; argument would fail on the merits if reached |
Key Cases Cited
- Gomes v. Rosario, 79 A.3d 1262 (R.I. 2013) (trial justice acts as superjuror when ruling on new-trial motions)
- McGarry v. Pielech, 47 A.3d 271 (R.I. 2012) (standard for trial justice review of jury verdict)
- Dawkins v. Siwicki, 22 A.3d 1142 (R.I. 2011) (deference when trial justice reviews evidence and agrees with jury)
- Splendorio v. Bilray Demolition Co., 682 A.2d 461 (R.I. 1996) (adopting Restatement (Second) Torts § 520 factors for abnormally dangerous activities)
- State v. Ciresi, 45 A.3d 1201 (R.I. 2012) (raise-or-waive rule—issues must be articulated at trial to be preserved on appeal)
- State v. Brown, 9 A.3d 1240 (R.I. 2010) (litigant may not raise new issues on appeal that were not presented at trial)