Yi Gu v. Rhode Island Public Transit Authority
2012 R.I. LEXIS 20
| R.I. | 2012Background
- Yi Gu sued RIPTA and Hathaway after being struck while crossing at Waterman/North Main Street in Providence on March 2, 2005.
- Six-day jury trial in October 2009; plaintiff alleged Hathaway negligently caused the collision and sought compensatory damages and, for Hathaway, gross negligence.
- Trial included a jury view of the intersection and Hamilton’s studio; view involved a trip bar demonstration orchestrated during or after the view.
- Trial judge warned jurors about the view not being evidence but later described the view as ‘very instructive’ and permitted consideration of facts learned during the demonstration.
- Plaintiff moved for a new trial arguing weight of the evidence and improper view; trial judge denied the motion and later denied reconsideration.
- Court vacated the judgment and remanded for a new trial, holding the view evidentiary use and process reversible error and not harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the jury view error require a new trial? | Gu: view improperly introduced evidence via trip bar demonstration; prejudiced verdict. | Hathaway/RIPTA: view clarifications were permissible context; not evidence. | Yes; the view improperly admitted evidence, warranting a new trial. |
| Was the objection to the view timely and properly preserved? | Gu's counsel unaware of the demonstration; contemporaneous objection excused by lack of opportunity. | Rule 46 requires timely objection; failures preclude challenge. | Objection timely enough to review; nevertheless, new trial required due to errors during the view. |
| Did the trial judge act as seventh juror and improperly weigh evidence? | Judge’s ‘seventh juror’ role and reliance on view evidence violated standard; undermined neutrality. | Judge correctly weighed evidence under Rule 59; credibility determinations appropriate. | Trial judge erred; vacate for new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clemente v. Carnicon-Puerto Rico Management Associates, L.C., 52 F.3d 383 (1st Cir.1995) (views must not generate evidence; proper safeguards and preserved objections needed)
- State v. Hightower, 661 A.2d 948 (R.I.1995) (purpose of a jury view is to provide context, not evidence)
- Sasso v. Housing Authority of Providence, 111 A.2d 226 (R.I.1955) (view for understanding evidence; not evidentiary by itself)
- Kulpa v. General Ice Cream Corp., 43 A.2d 60 (R.I.1945) (purpose and limits of jury views)
- State v. Smith, 41 A.2d 153 (R.I.1945) (limits of evidentiary use from views)
- Patterson v. Colorado ex rel. the Attorney General of Colorado, 205 U.S. 454 (U.S.1907) (gatekeeper duty; evidence must be presented in open court)
- Cartier v. State, A.2d 843 (R.I.1980) (standard for weighing evidence as the trial court’s duty when reviewing post-trial motions)