Kennedy v. Cumberland Engineering Co., Inc.

195 malicious and to deter him and others from justice’s reference trial of compensatory damages plain City Newport award similar extreme conduct. Inc., lost profits, justification Concerts, tiffs we find the 453 101 v. Fact U.S. firmly of such action to be rooted in our (1981). An S.Ct. 69 L.Ed.2d profits long common law. Lost have been damages discretionary is punitive award of recognized proper Matarese, as a element of damage Scully with the fact. v. finder of in our state in interruption cases of business R.I., (1980); v. 422 A.2d Petrone (Simmons Brown, (1858)) 5 R.I. 299 and Davis, (1977). A.2d 485 in cases of unlawful discrimination by a justice specifically Whereas the trial found public utility in furnishing of services or Mignacca misappropriated plain- had facilities. Realty Main Co. v. Blackstone duty tiff’s had breached his property and Valley Gas & Electric R.I. A. his loyalty plaintiff, punitive award of (1937). recently, More we have em damages will disturbed. not be braced Professor McCormick’s rule that the final is to decide whether Our task requirement basic the recovery of loss motion vacate our order profit is that such loss be established 8, 1983, granted. June properly We with reasonable certainty. Develop Smith Superior decline to dissolve the Court order Corp. Inc., ment Enterprises, Bilow defendants, restraining years the for two 203, 212, A.2d officers, servants, agents, employees, McCormick, Damages at 99-100 attorneys and all others active concert doWe not require mathematical certain them, from participation soliciting with ty in this calculation. Zuromski v. Lukasz plaintiff’s regular business cus from ek, 66, 69, above, tomers. For the reasons stated All that is required is that the court be order of June was vacated and guided by Smith, some rational standard. these shall enjoined same individuals also be 112 R.I. at 483. from business from the soliciting any plain bar, In the case at plaintiff produced tiff’s referral customers. reliable evidence its average monthly appeal The is denied and defendants’ dis- 28, 1982, net income from January through is appealed missed. The judgment November 1982 in its Woonsocket store was affirmed, case are papers and the $3,494.93. Additional financial testimony Superior remanded to the Court. revealed that the Woonsocket store in- $6,631 curred an operating loss in Decem-

ber depar- month of defendant’s

ture. The trial explicitly found that profits suffered lost December equal average amount to its month- net ly income January KENNEDY Charles through November 1982. This finding is entirely consistent with rule announced in Zuromski shall and we not disturb it CUMBERLAND ENGINEERING absent a showing of manifest error. No COMPANY, INC. showing such has been made by defendant. 82-95-Appeal. No. final argument, defendants’ of Rhode Island. Supreme punitive damages improperly im by the trial posed justice, similarly 19, 1984. Jan. definition, damages, by Punitive flawed. compensate not intended to the injured are but rather to punish tort-feasor

party, wrongful action was

whose intentional or Abedon, Boren, Stokes, Ralph A.

Richard Biener, Stanzler, Lip- Michaelson, Skolnik & Providence, plaintiff. sey, Mandell, Mandell, Aisenberg, Mark S. Schwartz, Ltd. and Leonard Goodman & Grimm, Decof Decof, & Foley, John S. Providence, curiae. amicus Sarli, Lovegreen, Robert W.

Michael G. Providence, Allen, defend- Hinckley & ant. Gen., Faith A. II, Atty.

Dennis J. Roberts Gen., intervenor. LaSalle, Atty. Asst. Sp. Engineering, claiming OPINION that § barred the action because com- SHEA, Justice. was filed more than ten plaint appeals from the order for purchased. the machine was first The At- summary judgment against entered him in intervened in torney support General Superior appeal Court. The raises the summary judgment motion for because issue validity (1969 of the of G.L.1956 Reen- of a state statute was constitutionality actment) 9-l-13(b), as amended P.L. § objec- in his question by plaintiff called into 1978, 2, 299, ch. under the Federal and judge granted tion to the motion. The trial State Constitutions. We reverse the order motion, alleging plaintiff appealed, summary judgment and remand the and due- equal-protection violations of case to the Superior Court for further pro- process guarantees of the Fourteenth ceedings. Amendment to the United States Constitu- The plaintiff, Charles Kennedy, filed a protected by tion and access to the courts complaint in Superior 6, Court on October I, art. sec. of the Rhode Island Constitu- 1981,alleging that on or about October tion. Two amicus curiae briefs were filed 1978,three fingers on his hand were in support plaintiff’s appeal. of amputated finger and a fourth fractured while he using a machine manufac- by defendant, tured Engineer- Cumberland I, APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE ing. The machine was first sold for use 5, OF THE RHODE SECTION defendant in November and later was CONSTITUTION ISLAND obtained by Corporation, Service Color plaintiff’s employer. I, Article sec. Island Rhode Constitution states:

In 1978 the General Assembly amended 5. Remedies for wrongs Right “§ require 9-1-13 to that claims for recov- — justice. Every person within this state ery of damages involving injury-causing — ought remedy, by having to find a certain products must be commenced “within ten laws, recourse to the for all (10) years after the date the product was wrongs may which he receive in his per- -first purchased for use or consumption.” son, property, ought or character. He Section reads: justice freely obtain and with- “Notwithstanding provisions out de- purchase, completely and without (a) section, subsection of this an action nial; promptly delay; and without eom- for the recovery of damages formably to the laws.” injury, death or damage to real or person- al property, including any action that this is based The defendant claims section upon implied arising warranties out of an prohibition purchase limited to a alleged design, inspection, listing justice. or man- sale This how- interpretation, ufacturing defect, any alleged ever, other the clear ignores is too narrow and defect of whatsoever or nature in kind command contained in the first sentence. product, or arising alleged out of any of the cases in which this court has Many failure to warn regarding product, I, art. sec. of our addressed constitution arising any alleged out of failure prop- provision have dealt with the con solely erly instruct in the use a product, shall justice. cerning “purchase” See (10) commenced within ten years Aciz, Jones v. 109 R.I. the product date was first purchased dismissed, 409 U.S. appeal for use or consumption.” (1972); L.Ed.2d 678 Lewis v. S.Ct. Smith, (1899); The defendant filed 43 A. 542 Perce a motion for summa- 21 R.I. ry judgment Hallett, (1881); Spalding and an Stanley affidavit from Gotham, (1879); Conley T. a vice R.I. 244 president Bainbridge, of Cumberland conclude that an analysis We therefore Savings, Woonsocket Institution Const, under R.I. art. (1875); Geary, Hudson v. issue present Peckham, appropriate. Littlefield v. 1 R.I. 500 not, however, limit the This does 5, to “pur- of art. see. II cases, chase” only. issue each ANALYSIS second of section 5 was the only sentence portion of article I dealt with because the Rhode Clearly, interpret related to the or fee not be issue involved cost Island should Constitution applied litigants. to one of the enacting None ed to bar the these gives any party bringing cases indication that laws limit may was the sole of this purpose constitutional claim in There are instances our courts. provision. permissibly placed which the Legislature on the parties’ reasonable limits or burdens Other cases of this court that have adjudicated by right to have their claims I, 5, dealt of the with art. sec. Rhode Island have the courts. of limitation Statutes clearly give Constitution show an intent to legislative deter upheld been as reasonable broader, meaning independent applica plaintiff’s to cut off a mination of when tion to the sentence. first the recent claim. v. existing to an Johnson bring Martineau, of 233, case Lemoine v. R.I. 115 Inc., 454, 421 Railway Agency, U.S. Express 342 (1975), A.2d 616 this court held that a 1722, 295, 463-64, 1716, 44 L.Ed.2d 95 S.Ct. statute excusing legislators from all court Park, 568, 116 (1975); Young 303 v. R.I. appearances while the is in ses 573, 697, (1976). 359 A.2d 700 Reasonable sion “flies in the face of the constitutional as a filing fees also have been sustained I, command found in art. 5.” (Emphasis party’s seeking to a permissible condition added.) 240, Id. at 342 A.2d at 621. Cf. adjudicated. existing claim have his her Hammond, 98, Martin 89 R.I. v. Hallett, v. R.I. 363 Perce 13 (1959) (the analyzed, 114 court under 5, of access to the justice’s Const. trial denial art. sec. discre The total tion in of a claim even be considering adjudication a motion a continu courts ance); Collins, however, “flies arises, certainly A.2d fore it most Molloy v. face constitutional command (1941) (although rejecting the of the Martineau, 5,” contention, recognized 1, found in Lemoine appli the court art. 621, and 240, cation 115 R.I. at 342 A.2d at to hold injuries). of the section to this to render constiiu- factually These cases are different from the otherwise would be prohibit To However, protectidh"~worthless, they point case tional before us. for a rec- reading absolutely generally to a of court access less-restrictive the section plaintiffs merely ognized than claim to a class urged by that defendant. To hold by a injured product require ignore they otherwise would that we because is old not irration- entire of art. 5. A more than ten years first sentence al, flies in the in our but also face premise interpreta opinion, basic of constitutional protection tion is must be its of even minimal constitutional every given As we sec. 5. stated force, meaning due and effect and that no mandated art. R.I., 87, Boucher v. Sayeed, word or section must be assumed to have down a we struck statute (1983), been used or add which unnecessarily needlessly States, medical-malpractice plaintiffs ed. Wright v. United treated U.S. whole, as a plaintiffs differently from tort L.Ed. S.Ct. class (1938); States, special legis- “The constitutes v. United 289 U.S. statute Williams spe- for the benefit of 572-73, solely lation L.Ed. enacted S.Ct. ** defendant(s) Even Jennison, cially Pet. defined Holmes limi- 570-71, upheld where this has reasonable 10 L.Ed. 579 to ensure their wish who tations, allowing future stopped it has short to file be forced injuries would (e.g. Spalding court access absolute bars to redress even then injury, but (1879) (plaintiffs day 12 R.I. 244 Bainbridge, suit the because be total- surety They to furnish for costs would inability too late. may be they to bar his run began held not sufficient poverty when the clock ly unaware court)). action in run out. already even if it had Hospital, In Fournier v. Miriam to claims bars has invalidated This court court found 175 A.2d 298 discovered, at least injured party until the to chari- immunity granting statute discovered, injury. or her have should his institutions did not violate table manifestly would, opinion, in our “It Legis- noted the holding, 5. In so this court injury the enforcement to bar unjust to alter the substance of power lature’s who was brought by claims case, however, not common law. This that he have known not, could not nor did applicable immunity here. The statute be- conduct was, of tortious the victim deprive in Fournier plaintiffs unknowa- harm was consequent cause the servants, day agents, in court because act. negligent two ble within remained liable employees hospital of a * * * * * * Rather, pre- the statute for their torts. the com- plaintiffs using vented the obtaining person preclude “[T]o theory respondeat superior mon-law wrong because remedy simply hospital. reach the defendant not manifest the victim did which he was from the time years at least two itself for hand, statute, complete- This on the other conduct, incon- clearly is negligent of the of ly products-liability denies claimants concept of fundamental with the sistent court, notwithstanding day a reme- a man to seek require To justice. liabili- merits of their claims and the direct rights, palpa- is he knows of his dy Products-li- before ty potential of the defendants. added.) Wilkin- unjust.” (Emphasis bly more ability injured by products claimants 224, 237-38, Harrington, 104 years than ten old are left with no forum in son v. Prosser, 752-53 See bring which to their claims. If the consti- Torts the Law of guarantee § of of access Handbook of tutional 1971). this statute any meaning, (4th courts is to have ed.

must be struck down. Supreme Court Hampshire New As the Co., Sears, Roebuck & case, stated in Heath alleges

In the present plaintiff (N.H.1983): 16, 1978, injured by that he was on October nine after it approximately years a machine limit is unreasonable twelve-year “The The was first sold for use defendant. pro- pills purchase the mere because (three limitations applicable statute in Califor- manufacturer drug aby duced 9-1-14) gave years personal injuries, § made in automobile nia, or of a defective file until to his defendant October on the consumer place Michigan, does filing with complaint, complied which he injurious to his a hidden defect notice of him, Yet, to his 1981. unknown October defects product When safety. health bring to the claim ceased in November provided long has injury, our law lead to (ten purchase after the years when the to regard without recovery pro machine), because injury-causing placed was made object substance or 9-l-13(b). vision stream or international national into the impor- particularly is This of commerce. his aware that The was not even injuries may not cases where tant in filed suit and suit was barred until he years until manifest themselves interrogatories through learned answers to adenocarcino- later, the clear-cell such as sale of from affidavits the date of the and of mothers daughters in the mas found machine. Parties injury-causing * * * make an unrea- years repose who or more twenty previously “Statutes similarly situ- estrogen pill commonly took female distinction between sonable See, manufacturers, in that the makers known as (diethylstilbestrol). DES ated Co., may be insulated e.g., long-lived products Bichler v. Lilly Eli short-lived 571, 577-78, while makers of liability, N.Y.2d 436 N.E.2d product lia- (1982).” singled out products 450 N.Y.S.2d are bility.” Similarly, in the instant case Charles to Allis Manufactur- Kennedy’s right of access the court In Battilla v. Chalmers (Fla.1980), the Su- absolutely running ing barred before the 392 So.2d 874 per issued a curiam applicable plain- preme statute of limitation. The Court of Florida of repose a statute bringing opinion tiff was barred from his action that invalidated The court did so he cases. products-liability before was able to discover the time authority Overland Construction applicable rights. frame that was to his It “on (Fla.1979), Sirmons, Co. v. 369 So.2d be manifestly unjust would and inconsistent case, that, applied as plaintiff’s right with art. to bar [that] [Flori- [held] access to repose] denies da’s statute of absolutely. access to the courts article section courts violation [in of] is further harshness Article Florida Constitution.” [of the] highlighted hy- and intensified when one provides: 21 of the Florida Constitution pothesizes about its other every person open “The courts shall be similar situations. Plaintiffs be abso- may shall injury, for redress of through no'care- lutely barred sale, denial or be administered without they lessness fault of their own because delay.” injured products not mani- did Co., supra, the fest their were ten In Overland Construction they defects until Furthermore, repose a statute of plaintiffs old. would Florida court considered engineers, professional they applied because were which recovery barred from architects, injured injured and licensed contrac- by products continually registered brought more suits people designs prohibited because of defective con- tors had construction was twelve years struction when manufacturers deter- than the statute violat- prod- completed. mine it more economical to allow the It found that to of access ed the constitutional stay uct to in the field of commerce until ten-year applies than correct the courts. bar to in defect. as be the case this Finally, may recently Hampshire New Su- Most instance, a a product expectancy with life products- declared the state’s preme Court greater unfairly much than ten can liability repose statute of unconstitutional a from the effect of enjoy immunity total because it violated a state-constitutional great product’s its defect a of the part to The court provision similar ours.1 useful life. The of this statute Sears, Co., 464 & A.2d Heath v. Roebuck unjust. to is no harsh and less that because the (N.H.1983), reasoned important was substan- provi- to recover an with similar constitutional States classification at issue type right, have struck down this tive sions also must be reasonable repose court stated in statute of statute. The Alabama legisla- Sullivan, legitimate Lankford to a Long Hagerty, substantially & related (Torbert, The the statute (Ala.1982) C.J., objective. tive court held So.2d plain- a it eliminates concurring unreasonable because specially): character; person, property, to Hampshire obtain 1. Part 14 of New Consti art. being obliged provides: justice freely, right and without tution it; purchase completely, and without to “Every subject of this state is entitled to a denial; delay; promptly, con- and without by having remedy, to certain recourse formably laws, the laws.” may to he receive in all his ar reliance wrong majority opinion’s tiff’s claim before the can be reason I, of our constitution ticle section ably Quoting Judge discovered. Frank’s 1—13(b) misguided both invalidate § dissent in Dincher v. Marlin Firearms 9— hold previous misplaced light (2d Cir.1952), 198 F.2d the court section, as the court. That ings of this “condemned the ‘Alice in ef Wonderland’ most fre recognizes, has been majority fect” of the results: “ indigent litigant an quently employed by land, ‘Except can’t topsy-turvy you appeal despite of an justify prosecution conceived, you die before are divorc- post fees or filing pay his failure to you marry, ed before ever or harvest a however, only has litigant, a surety. Such crop planted, never or burn down a house theory in cases in been successful under this built, running never or miss a train on clearly established indigency which his non-existent railroad. For substantially cause of his action was probable and the reasons, similar always it has heretofore Spalding affidavit. Ba demonstrated been “axi- accepted, logical as sort of 244-45 inbridge, 12 R.I. om,” that a statute of does not limitations begin to run against a cause of action “purchase” seven cases two of the exists, i.e., before that cause of action a rule majority has such been cited judicial before is available to a indigent liti to afford relief to an applied Heath, plaintiff.’” at 295-96. A.2d cases, no violation of art. gant. In all other recent I, 5 has found. In our most sec. been Although we recognize Legislature’s case, we declined hold “purchase” wide scope of discretion to balance interests assistance to aid provides any sec. 5 and enact laws accordingly, we believe that appeal an indigent prosecuting an tenant the Rhode Island Constitution forbids abso- judgment District Court from an adverse lute bars to claim recovery recognized from his leasehold under dispossessing him before the full stat- tolling applicable Aciz, 9-12-12. Jones limitations. ute of The plaintiff should specifically In Jones we A.2d day have his in court to show whether he is an give that art. did noted entitled to relief. The of whether question appel at the any protection tenant indigent he prevail hearing will must await a on the the clear man stage, given late merits in a court proper jurisdiction. To posting of a bond. require date Because we find that is in- fly in the clearly hold otherwise “would consistent with art. of the Rhode the statute language of express face of the Constitution, Island we address need not unreasonable and would constitute the remainder of the contentions Id. at judicial legislation.” concerning the of the statute under validity 52. the Federal Constitution. have event, cases “purchase” In these sustained, The plaintiff’s appeal is and appeal. His- no relevance to absolutely papers the in the case are remanded to the I, “purchase” art. sec. 5’s torically, Superior Court for further proceedings. Magna from the Car- directly borrowed was abolish, not fixed designed ta and “was MURRAY, Justice, dissenting. revenue, fees, purposes for the prescribed anciently paid which were recognizing legitimate concern but the fines While pro- delay proceedings or law my colleagues expedite in a statute that upholding 363, Hallett, R.I. v. cure favor.” Perce effectively injured denies redress to the sense, king “the seemed (1881). In this plaintiff, respectfully upon I must dissent to some and (1969 Reenact- to sell ground that G.L.1956 Id. at 365. P.L.1978, it to others.” ment) 9-l-13(b), delay deny amended as § that the bar, showing is made the case at no legislative ch. is well within the § 9- application practical § enactment or power as defined our constitution. no such l-13(b) 9-l-13(b) disrup- creates wealthy politi- has caused certain Section pro- an affirmative simply provides tion. It cally products-liability plaintiffs favored products-liability to a de- compensation obtain for their more cedural defense to the complaint in the answer frequently poorer politically than their fendant stage At this there has disadvantaged counterparts when both him. upon served part minor discovery upon groups injured by products placed only in been jury impan- and no has been years prior respective party, service ten to their either Indeed, injuries. Indeed, judiciary may such nev- the role showing could eled. only er be made since the determinative little more than the docket- have involved factor under is the and the issuance product’s plaintiff’s case ing § age injured and not the wealth or summons In this to the defendant. political position. context, to conclude there it is inconceivable miniscule but the most anything has been majority implicitly rec- Consequently, certainly none in judicial involvement ognize I, the first sentence of art. invoked constitutional degree 5, may sec. 9-1— used to strike down § in Lemoine. sanction 13(b) as propo- unconstitutional. With this agree, although sition I must no find parallel I can see no be Additionally, justification holding upon for their reading absolute im provides a statute that tween previous decisions of this court con- to legisla munity judicial appearances struing that sentence. cite My brethren simply regulate one while in session and tors Martineau, Lemoine v. 115 R.I. may be in which actions ing period the time (1975), justification A.2d 616 as primary under a manufacturer brought against a the proposition remedy that art. sec. 5’s tort. The latter liability of strict theory clause has separate, independent meaning. modifying simply is concerned with decision, however, A close reading of that law, see Ritter v. created the common second, reveals theory that a autonomous Narragansett Electric employed judicial-con- to invalidate the the former in (1971), A.2d 255 whereas tinuance statute at in that case. issue Gen- of pow invasion volves a direct (1968 Reenactment) eral Laws 22-4- judicial branch assigned ers explicitly Legislative 3. usurpation judicial Constitution, art. R.I. our constitution. function, specifically, legislators’ uncon- 1; Garnetto, III, X, see art. State judici- stitutional encroachment Taylor & D. A.2d 777 G. R.I. ary’s right its affairs in a manner to control Place, (1856); Opinion of 4 R.I. 324 & Co. Lemoine, equitable litigants, fair and to all Justices, 115 R.I. at was held to my breth- support I find no Similarly, equally be an sufficient basis in itself to sec. 5’s of art. application ren’s invalidate 22-4-3. Collins, 66 Molloy clause to this case it Admittedly, the Lemoine court found or in Martin v. necessary remedy- to reach A.2d 114 Hammond, 89 R.I. apply. clause issue and found it to Extend- certain the removal of Molloy involved ing that clause’s to the instant Board of Can- members of the Providence case, however, requires leap a herculean mayor. elected This newly the vassers part the of this court which is the removal found that specifically and con- given infrequent prior unwise our I, sec. 5’s under art. entirely proper was section. structions of that that Justice Moss stated remedy clause. suffered no deposed the canvassers dis-

Lemoine involved a direct persons properties respective to their ruption ongoing judicial of an trial and had any collective removal nor dam- to do suits or from their nothing products-liability with from the characters ages respective statutes of to repose.

203 charges year repose) of malfeasance and nonfeasance of statute ab- products-liability duties which caused their removal. “It is for the judicial sent interference: Court, to Legislature, impose, not for this as granting Martin involved the of a motion liability person- a to precedent condition a in continuance trial an occur injury al that must within injury, assumpsit apparent action to resolve in- an wrongdoing time after specified consistency upon previous rulings. motion Again, alleged proximate no violation of art. which is to have been was found light to have occurred. Bolick, both 306 at 293 cause.” N.C. S.E.2d the inappositeness of the facts in those at v. Wm. C. Vick (quoting Raftery 420-21 cases to the case at bar the findings by and Co., 180, 190-91, Construction 291 N.C. 230 our court of no violation constitutional in (1976)). 411 the legisla- S.E.2d “That one, either can I find precedent no either authority ture has the to establish a condi- holding justify to the majority’s result. originally tion to precedent what Again, I suggest my must brethren’s beyond ques- common law cause of action is remedy sec. 5’s clause is the Assembly policy- tion. General ‘[T]he to this an case is unwarranted and radical of our and making agency government, departure prior holdings. from our when to legislate respect it elects to the Even Iwere to concede that the case at rule, common subject matter of law provided bar an appropriate opportunity to law statute the common rule and supplants invigorate analysis constitutional under art. public becomes the policy State 5,1 ” would forced to conclude that Bolick, respect particular to that matter.’ 13(b) is valid. 9-1— 306 (quoting N.C. at S.E.2d Article sec. 5’s is our Proctor, McMichael v. 243 N.C. guarantee constitution’s access (1956)). S.E.2d courts for the redress injuries. the Bolick court Consequently, concluded Such a guarantee in many respects has been injuries subject that for 1- those G.S. interpreted as a due-process provision con- 50(6), the must “plaintiff prove condi- cerning itself with the destruction stat- precedent tion the cause of action is ute of McGovern, right, vested see years ‘more brought no than six Variety, Policy and Constitutionality purchase product] date of initial [of Product Liability of Repose, Statutes ” Bolick, consumption.’ use N.C. at (1981) Annot., Am.U.L.Rev. 579 at 420. S.E.2d A.L.R. 4th 641 Legislature enacting

Despite plethora Similarly, of decisions cited by my brethren in modified common-law support holding, of their our own highest courts Narragansett five states have con- rule in Ritter v. Elec- created sidered challenges constitutional prod- Co., tric A.2d 255 ucts-liability statutes of under repose as a requires Our now condition five, above theories. Of these the weight of precedent bringing products-liability authority is nearly concerning balanced brought action the action be no more their constitutionality.2 product after the than “ten date consuro,^ was first for use or purchased In Bolick v. Barmag Corp., American 9-l-13(b). Using Bolick as tion.” Section N.C. 293 S.E.2d 415 the North forced to our sole would be con- guide, Carolina Supreme gave explicit rec- well within its ognition clude that such action was legislature’s right to their state enact 1-50(6) (North power. G.S. Carolina’s six- constitutional Roebuck, Co., Sullivan, Sears, Long Hagerty, (Ind.1981); 2. See Lankford v. Heath v. & (Ala.1982); (N.H.1983); 416 So.2d 996 v. Allis Bolick v. Ameri Battilla Chal 464 A.2d 288 g Mfg. (Fla.1980); Barmag Corp., mers 293 S.E.2d So.2d 874 can 306 N.C. Da Piper Corp., Aircraft 418 N.E.2d 207 ue did so in They the tiff’s access to the courts. uphold Total reliance Bolick to Battilla, a one-sentence order. essentially is unneces- constitutionality of § however, at 874. sary, light opin- in of this court’s So.2d ion in Hospital, Fournier v. Miriam three-judge a There was well-reasoned Fournier, (1961). In 175 A.2d 298 upheld which would have dissent in Battilla court specifically rejected plaintiff’s argu- 95.031 as a sound constitutionality of Legislature may abridge ment that the “developing lia- response from the modify right or a vested derived Battilla, 392 a manufacturer.” bility of remedy common law under art. sec. 5’s Be- (McDonald, dissenting). J. So.2d at 875 case, upheld clause. In that the court brevity of the Battilla the extreme cause of constitutionality of a statute that absolved and the sounder per opinion curiam court’s hospitals supported part by in whole or in dissent, per I that find reasoning of its liability charitable contributions for as au- totally unpersuasive curiam decision negligence of their employees. 9-l-13(b). thority to strike down § Fournier, In explicitly adopted holding not find the Similarly, do “ the Alabama rule that ‘this provision [art. Sullivan, Hagerty, Long Lankford 1, sec. preserve does not undertake to 5] sufficiently con- (Ala.1982), 416 So.2d existing against legislative change duties the facts of this vincing analogous ” made before the Fourni- breach occurs.’ 9-l-13(b). justify invalidating case to er, “If it 175 A.2d at 301. Lankford, Supreme Court the Alabama legislature were otherwise the would be rights guar- as fundamental certain defined restricting barred from altering by way Constitu- anteed sec. 13 of the Alabama by “ extending the common provisions of ‘[tjhat all courts That section states tion. manner, law in of social any regardless every person, and that open; be * * * changes and the of man over experiences remedy him, shall have injury done It that contemplated centuries. was never law; process of by due the constitution should be so construed.” sale, denial, without shall be administered ” Id. at 175 A.2d at 301. at 999. Lankford, 416 So.2d delay.’ court make no such majority man- The of this Notwithstanding explicit policy for redress Fournier, date of now seek to that the to sue majority finding products ignore theory the doctrine stare decisis and al- under of art. purposes plaintiff liability low under an even sim- is fundamental proceed construe explicitly theory employed they than that sec. 5.3 Nor do pler recovery due-pro- as a To do so with- sec. 5’s Fournier. these two basic guarantee. Upon out the Fournier rule cess explicitly overruling therefore, is fundamen- grounds, can in what was Lankford only introduce confusion the case at bar. distinguishable from previously tally a well-settled area of law. Supreme Alabama the other cases on Additionally, Additional review of standard employed heightened from this con- point does not dissuade me ten-year statute evaluating v. Allis review in its holding clusion. The in Battilla there be substan- required It Manufacturing repose. Chalmers 392 So.2d evil” the “social relationship invali- tial between (Fla.1980), per opinion was a curiam at- and their statute of re- dating twelve-year perceived Florida’s prerequisite it as a tempt actions. Fla. to eradicate pose products-liability See Lankford, 416 the statute. So.2d (1981). Only judges sustaining 95.031 four Stat. § such a rule. that said at 1001. I do not embrace distinguished body agreed should plain- denied the better view is the statute unconstitutionally statute equal-protection surprising light holding rights protected 3. This is not of our mental Sayeed, R.I., challenging Boucher v. constitutionali- clause in a case 459 A.2d 87 ty medical-malpractice expand act. of our reform where we refused to the list of funda-

205 arbitrary sustained if it is not and is reason

able. See United v. Carolene States Prod action, we must sustain § 9-1-13(b) validity. Co., 144, 778, ucts 304 58 U.S. S.Ct. 82 L.Ed. the correct result was opinion, In my Cleland, 1234 Issarescu v. 465 reached in Thornton v. Mono Manufactur- 657, F.Supp. (D.R.I.1979) 660 and Massachu 657, Co., 722, Ill.Dec. ing Ill.App.3d 99 54 setts Murgia, Board of Retirement v. 427 (1981) Dague Piper 425 N.E.2d 522 307, 2562, U.S. 49 (Ind.1981), S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 520 418 N.E.2d 207 Corp., Aircraft at (1976). two identical to the one presumed virtually Reasonableness will be cases policy. bar that embraced the Fournier where the Legislature enacts economic measures. Williamson Optical v. Lee cases, produets-liability In statutes both Oklahoma, 348 U.S. S.Ct. on the that repose upheld grounds (1955). L.Ed. 563 I refuse to long- awaken were de- rights plaintiff no vested rejected notions of substantive due process4 bring stroyed barring rights and adhere to the Williamson rule in cases produets-liability expira- actions after the Thornton, rights. non-fundamental Economic In leg statutory period. tion of Appellate islation is the Illinois Court stated province of the Legis months since the statute was enacted six lature. Lindsley See v. Natural Carbonic prior plaintiff’s injury, the statute “did 61, 78-79, Gas U.S. S.Ct. which had legal right already not disturb a 55 L.Ed. at the time it came plaintiff vested Sears, The recent decision of Heath v. Thornton, into effect.” Ill.App.3d Roebuck, Co., (N.H.1983), & 464 A.2d 288 54 Ill.Dec. at 425 N.E.2d at 525. unpersuasive for this Again, same reason. Thus, the was not entitled to a a produets-liability repose statute of was due-process under Illinois’s remedy scrutinized aby employing a higher right abrogated by because no vested was standard of review than that traditionally statute. afforded economic legislation.5 Dague, cause of action Additionally, the Heath decision is not yet had also not accrued at the time that cogent authority since it in a legal arose statute of re- produets-liability Indiana context critically distinct case at Thus, was enacted. she was “not pose bar. In New Hampshire, judicial a strong position having right had vested philosophy prevails that makes certain taken her.” 418 N.E.2d at Dague, rights of the common law sacrosanct. This Supreme 213. In the Indiana Court Dague, philosophy prevented New Hampshire’s Su- “there is no vested or specifically held that preme Court from rule of the common upholding right a statute that property They Id. at 213. further held completely abridged “the to an law.” right ade- * * * yet since no action had accrued quate cause of for the infringement act, there was “no cause of action under right derived from the unwritten law.” Id., existing,” plain- whatsoever when Heath, 464 A.2d at 294 (quoting State plain- injured. Consequently, tiff was Saunders, 66 N.H. 25 A. “remedy” not entitled to a again tiff (1889)). jurisdiction, In this opposite right remedy” vested in a since there is “no judicial philosophy pre- controls. Given Id. under Indiana’s constitution. vious holding explicitly reject- Fournier ing the perpetuation infinite of common- analysis requires the conclusion Similar rights law in the face in this case be denied. contrary legislative plaintiff’s appeal York, 4. Lochner v. New required 198 U.S. that the statute’s classification be rea- S.Ct. 49 L.Ed. 937 bear a fair and substantial relation- sonable and Heath, objective. ship Hampshire Supreme specif- 5. The New A.2d at 294-95. ically held that the to recover for important is an substantive result offend would amendment. Such injured He was on October 1978. Sec- 12,1978, checks and balances 9-l-13(b) May tion became law on our notion Governor, govern- and branches of signature without the the various between of action ment, flexibility required was made effective to all causes and of the accruing after 1978. His claim did July Freezer of the law.” healthy growth the vest, all, if at until more than five Armstrong Cork Storage, Inc. v. months after had become law § Pa. effec- following and over three months its sympa- invoke Kennedy’s Charles Therefore, of tive date. no vested However, emotional thy compassion. and plaintiff’s abrogated by the enactment constitu- of a clear concern in the absence 9-l-13(b). of the princi- Consistent with justify ambiguity mandate does not tional Thornton, ples Hague, enunciated in and products liability. in the field Fournier, to a reme- plaintiff is not entitled view, con- determinations my policy dy since art. sec. 5 vested only protects properly issues are most cerning “ economic rights. no ‘breach Where there has been the arena where all legislative ” “ made a legal duty,’ legal has ‘no problem surrounding particular factors * * damages person claim for to [his] Legislature weighed. When may be Fournier, at 301. 93 R.I. at balancing compet- concerned with properly concerning point One final must be made market for a stable ing interests to ensure discussion, In their majority’s analysis. and acts products of basic the manufacture my Kennedy’s brethren refer to Charles repose, enacting a statute by to do so “right bring action.” This manner th[is] is at Legislature should end. Our inquiry characterizing propriety making court in as this competent least as Fournier, Ha- ignores suit the command of policy economic determinations. Thornton, gue, plainly and which demon- herein, I enunciated Upon premises common strates that no created 9-l-13(b) clearly the enactment of find perpetually law is immune from pow- Legislature’s constitutional within pos- did not abrogation. Kennedy Charles reason, would affirm er. For this suit. It brought sess claim when he and deny justice, of the trial ruling acted Legislature

did not exist since the had appeal. the plaintiff’s dismiss to eliminate it. To hold otherwise would both castrate in its to enact new Legislature ability response changing

laws in social proper disrupt

economic conditions and power equal

balance of between branches government. Supreme As the Court a twelve-

Pennsylvania upholding noted architects year repose protecting statute of et al. Paul E. BURKE builders, would encroach “[t]his develop- Legislature’s ability guide WERKE MOTOREN BAYERISCHE legisla- ment of the law if we invalidated al. et AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT the rule enacted simply tion because 83-146-Appeal. No. rejects some cause of ac- Island. of Rhode Supreme Court by the courts. currently preferred tion rules To do so would be to certain place 20, 1984. Jan. non-con- of the ‘commonlaw’ and certain above all stitutional decisions courts

change except constitutional

Case Details

Case Name: Kennedy v. Cumberland Engineering Co., Inc.

Court Name: Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Date Published: Jan 19, 1984

Citation: 471 A.2d 195

Docket Number: 82-95-Appeal

Court Abbreviation: R.I.