*1 Our review of record convinces us the trial more than met his
obligations to evidence in
light jury charge, independently as- credibility impor-
sess the the two most witnesses, Andujar Santiago,
tant agreed whether he
determine with the
jury’s ultimate verdict. With our justice’s
review the trial decision to
deny trial new to an
comes We see error end. justice’s
trial considered determinations.
Conclusion
For set the reasons forth this opinion,
we affirm
Court. The record is remanded to that
tribunal.
Kathleen CARLSON
TOWN OF SOUTH KINGSTOWN et al. 2014-318-Appeal.
No.
Supreme Court of Rhode Island.
Feb. *2 Clifford, Brian Tomberg, Esq., J.
Erik J. Providence, for Esq., Defendants. 1- - SUTTELL, C.J., Présent: GOLDBERG, FLAHERTY, ROBINSON, INDEGLIA, JJ. OPINION SUTTELL, for the Court. Chief Justice Carlson, appeals Kathleen The in from Court favor defendants, Kingstown South of one defendant), in League (league this plaintiff sustained action. The injury аn Town of park (town) Kingstown was a South she game spectator League at a Little baseball organized by This case defendant. Supreme pursuant came before Court directing parties appear to an order why cause the issues raised show summarily decid- appeal this should be considering parties’ written ed. After reviewing and oral submissions record, we that cause has not conclude may been shown and that this case be briefing argu- decided without further ment. For reasons set forth judgment of opinion, we affirm the Superior Court.
I
History
and Procedural
Facts
Court is familiar with
facts of
This
previous
case as
in our
set forth
deci
Kings
sion in Carlson v. Town
South
(R.I.2015) (Carlson I)).1
town,
while. complaint, plaintiff her that alleged Murphy (Murphy), maintaining “negligent Theresa Director defendant was * * town, of Leisure explained Services premises Tuckertown Field during deposition As that town had a result of negligence, three, three-person plaintiff maintenance crews claims that she “sustained severe pеrsonal injuries maintained town’s seventeen that required medical parks. explained respect ongoing, She with treatment that well as lost Park, a three-person wages earning capacity, Tuckertown and loss of anxi- crew * * “provide[s] park ety, pain suffering July maintenance twice a On tasks, Among week.” other summary judg- the town moved for (1986)). ment, a L.Ed.2d 265 S.Ct. arguing that owed complaints alleging negligence “Although park. to maintain the The care motion, often often fact-intensive therefore objected insisting de- are summary judgment, not well suited for inspect the a fendant had question of whether defendant owes hosting prior discovered, question of law that repair defects Court], on a de danger- novo basis.” review[s] of known [the or at a minimum to warn I, 111 at 822. Carlson league’s ous The conditions. August grantеd on
argued and
hearing
reasoned
Ill
“[tjhere’s
ownership interest
*4
Discussion
itself,
of
both
property
has
plaintiff
that the
appeal,
argues
On
hear-
well
itself as
as
sur-
the athletic field
granting
ing justice erred
hearing
fur-
rounding
areas.” The
summary
because
judgment
impose
tо
explained
duty
“to
a
ther
of
genuine
material fact
there were
issues
somebody
repair
prop-
else’s
maintain and
* * *
duty
to
a
of
whether defendant owed
something
[Legis-
erty
[is]
to
plaintiff
care
based
the information
of, not
should make a determination
lаture
during discovery. Specifically,
disclosed
[c]ourt,”
timely
a
plaintiff
filed
t[he]
argues
questions
that there are
of
appeal.
notice of
to:
* * *
II
pre-existed
“whether
hole
be-
game,
or
fore
whether it was
should
of Review
Standard
by
have been known
the various coaches
grant
“This Court will review the
[league],
when
holes
summary
de
judgment
a motion for
of
cage,
batting
near the
created
[whether]
novo,
‘employing
same standards
**
*
they
ignored, whether
[were]
”
hearing
Dan
justice.’
rules
used
amounted
a warranted
defect
reckless
Fluette,
302,
(R.I.2013)
A.3d
304
iels v.
64
* *
*
conduct and whether
was mere-
E
(quoting Great American & S Insurance
* *
ly simple negligence
Narragan
v.
Pub &
End Zone
Grill
Co.
of
response,
asserts that it did
defendant
(R.I.2012)).
sett, Inc.,
571, 574
45 A.3d
duty
plaintiff, given
not owe
of care to
a
a
will affirm lower court’s decision
“We
that the town—and
—main-
if,
reviewing
only
after
admissible еvi
tains the
where
occurred.
in the
most
light
dence
favorable
“It
nonmoving
gen
prevail
is well
that to
party, we conclude that
settled
of
a
negligence
uine issue material fact exists and that
on a claim of
must
judgment
cognizable
moving party
legally
duty
a
entitled
establish
owed
(quoting
of
a
of
as a
law.” Id.
Great
a defendant
a
breach
matter
Co.,
duty, proximate
E
45
American & Insurance
A.3d
between the
S
causation
574). “[S]ummary judgment
resulting injury,
should
and the
and the
enter
conduct
damage.”
a
‘against party
Prop
who fails make
show
actual loss
Nationwide
of
ing
erty
Casualty
sufficient to
the existence
&
Insurance
v.
establish
Co. D.F.
Construction, Inc.,
106,
party’s
Pepper
to that
an element essential
case
59 A.3d
* *
(R.I.2013)
Knitting,
(quoting
Lavoie
East
110
v. Mi
v. North
Habershaw
Stores,
Inc.,
(R.I.2007)
Inc.,
1273,
225,
(quoting
A.2d
chaels
42 A.3d
1276
918
228
Catrett,
317,
(R.I.2012)).
322,
“Although
Corp.
have frowned
Celotex
v.
477 U.S.
upon
of
disposition
negligence
just
claims
to church
attended
by summary judgment,
services);
of a
the existence
Maguire
see also
v. City of
duty
question
of
Providence,
is nonetheless
law.”
92,
(R.I.2014)
105 A.3d
93-94
LLC,
Tide,
Wyso v. Full Moon
78 A.3d (the plaintiff injured
walking
while
on side-
(R.I.2013). “In
of
the absence
mall); Wyso,
walk outside
Generally, this Court uses “an ad
case,
this
we are satisfied that the
hoc approach
particular
that turns on the
has failed to overcome the
hurdle
given
facts
of a
and circumstances
case” to
action against
the defen
duty&
determine whether'
exists. Wood
own,
dant because the
does not
defendant
Gitlow,
(R.I.2014)
91 A.3d
ruff
operate, or have control over the park
633).
Ouch,
(quoting
963 A.2d at
Under
plaintiff’s
the
oc
alleged
where
injury
this approach, the Court will “consider ‘all
Berman,.
curred.
an area ‘repetitive prob- that the were a divots general public, open This area was by players lem’ that caused who indicating no" that the is evidence there dig spikes their the toe exеrcised.any over such control defendant into the baseball cleats is also evidence There area. waiting for turn enter the bat- their limit could access exclude defendant- cages.” ting Additionally, players
this area. view, during divots were my In that “the present nоt be -in' area ” ‘repetitive problem’ uncontroverted evidence game. There by players respon- “were caused town is Court that the before this into toe and of their baseball cleats park. maintenance sible case out of the ground” takеs this case, therefore, are of we of. context ambit of the cases cited several opinion that the not owe a majority -holding is no there plaintiff. duty of care to the an occurred on
“where radically What the defendant.” iv differentiates from the cases cit- this case Conclusion by the the fact that majority ed players “caused” divots herein, affirm For the stated reasons to come into indeed have existence—and Superior Court. that a acted so often be matter shall to the record returned (cid:127) (described “a majority = fellow Court. League parent and former assistant coach”) “repetitive ROBINSON, characterized J„ dissenting.. *6 case, it is being the clear problem.” That opinion is well-written The Court’s League ordinary Little is no me research into law "of reflects careful user of another! However, -it fails to convince me torts. plain blunt Tuckertown Field summary judgment correótly was changed was more made hazardous obliged I respectfully granted, and feel players deliberate activities of dissent. “who of would toe and their “Facts paragraph In the second ground cleats into baseball while wait- History” of the ma- and Procedural section ing batting turn their to enter jority’s following: one reads opinion, cages.” Accordingly, considering all the ¡J. Beretta, and, “Victor fellоw Little relevant particularly, prin- a. factors League fairness, parent and assistant ciple my opinion former- coach, fall but League Little of care to did owe ob- parent served divot on at the field was injured. During, deposi- play League her son watch baseball tion, roughly as injured. he divot when v. described she was Woodruff (R.I.2014).1 ‘6, across, Gitlow, maybe inches a little wider A.3d 8,10 deep.’ my judgment, good than inches that’ ‘a notes, scope majority opin ship parties, 1. As the in this of the and burden Court’s Gitlow, imposed upon obligation tо be the defen- ion v. Woodruff considerations, dant, (R.I.2014), determining public policy when and no- stated (Internal exists, quotation whether a the Court will tions of marks fairness.” factors, omitted.) including relation- “all relevant presence of spectators to warn caused.by repeatedly the divots activi- players
ties of the they prepared say,
enter the Needless sumnaáry judgment
if the vacate had been (as been),
ed I believe should have still grapple have had causation,
with issues breach and not to I credibility.
mention venture
to hypothesize party which I
prevail only know trial.
plaintiffs quest for recovery should not short of
have been cut off trial. There-
fore, respectfully I my record dissent.
STATE
Luis ROLDAN.
No. 2014-297-C.A.
Supreme Court Rhode Island.
Feb.