*1 Finаlly, Dr. Latina asserts proof failed meet her burden
in this case that a new trial was not above, however,
warranted. As discussed
it does not appear us that the trial overlooked misconceived evi- rather, presented;
dence we are of the
opinion that she carried out her un-
der the law applicable to review the evi-
dence and to exercise her
judgment. of the deference this justice’s ruling
Court affords to a trial on a motion,
new-trial persuaded are not
that her decision should be overturned.
Conclusion reasons,
For these grant- we affirm the
ing of a new trial and remand this case to Superior Court that purpose.
Bryan D. KONAR
v.
PFL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Development
National Asset
Management of New
England DePalma, Alias,
Dennis and Rhode Investigation
Island Bureau of Protection, Ltd. 2002-291-Appeal.
No.
Supreme Court of Rhode Island.
Jan. *2 Brent for Plaintiff. Regar,
Peter Parker, Providence, Amy for Defendant. C.J., WILLIAMS, Present: GOLDBERG, FLANDERS, FLAHERTY SUTTELL, JJ. OPINION PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff, Bryan (plaintiff), D. Konar appeals summary from a Court Superior defendant, PFL favor of the (PFL Company Life Insurance or defen- dant). ease Supreme This came before the argument for oral on September Court directing to an order pursuant parties appear why and show cause appeal issues raised this should not summarily hearing After deсided. arguments examining counsel are parties, memoranda filed shown opinion that cause has not been proceed appeal decide judgment of the Su- time. affirm the We perior Court.
I
Travel
Facts and
just
was attacked
June
Mall,
defen-
Newport
which
outside
mall,
leaving
As
dant owned.
he was
(DePalma) attacked and
DePalma
Dennis
injured
According
plaintiff,
plaintiff.
otherwise,
specific
se- or
that demon
adequate
defendant’s failure
facts
curity
injuries.
strate
existence of
issue of
genuine
caused his
Co.,
Boat
Bourg
material fact.
v. Bristol
The defendant contracted with National
(R.I.1998).
Summary
Development
Management
Assеt
of New
*3
if,
judgment
appropriate
viewing
is
(National
England
Development)
to be
evidence in the
most favorable to the
turn,
manager.
on-site
Devel-
National
party,
questions
no
of
nonmoving
material
opment
with the
Island
contracted
Rhode
moving
fact exist and the
is entitled
party
Protection,
Investigation
Bureau of
and
judgment
as a matter of law. Wood
(RIBI)
Ltd.
provide security
services
III
Keeney,
land
713
Manor
Associates v.
the mall.
(R.I.1998)
806,
(citing
A.2d
810
Rotelli v.
plaintiff brought
The
suit
PFL
against
Catanzaro,
91,
(R.I.1996)).
686 A.2d
93
for “negligent
provide security.”
provided
RIBI
the securi
Because
The
a
com-
third-party
defendant
filed
services,
negligent,
to be
against National Develoрment,
if
negligence,
any,
consider whether that
which in turn
fourth-party
asserted a
com-
may
imputed
be
Pursuant
defendant.
plaint for
contribution
indemnification
rule,
to the
a
independent
party
contractor
against
against
DePalma and
RIBI. RIBI
employs
independent
who
an
contractor
asserted a
cross-claim
DePalma for
not
generally
negli
will
be liable for the
contribution and indemnification. The mo-
gence
Bromaghim
of that contractor.
v.
tion
granted defendant’s
for
(R.I.2002)
615,
Furney,
A.2d
(per
808
617
summary judgment because RIBI
re-
curiam) (citing East
Collision &
Coast
sponsible
patrolling
for
the mall when de-
Restoration,
273,
Inc. Allyn,
742 A.2d
fendant
such,
pur-
was attacked. As
(R.I.1999)
curiam)).
275
It
(per
is undis
rule,
suant to
independent
contractor
puted
RIBI
an independent
is
con
any liability
part
RIBI
could
rule,
tractor.
under that
imputed
be
to defendant.
The
if
negligent,
even
RIBI were
defendant
timely appealed.
injuries.
would not be hable for
rule,
independent
The
contractor
II
however,
exceptions.
not without
For
Summary Judgment
example, party may
vicariously
liable
It is well settled that
independent
this Court
for the
acts of its
grant
“reviews the
if
summary judgment
party
an inde
contractor
retained
basis,
on a de
applying
pendent
novo
same
carry
contractor to
out
standards as
the trial court.” Sobanski v.
that is set out in
statute or
Donahue,
(R.I.2002).
57,
792
59
Thoroughbred
A.2d
ordinance. See Webbier v.
“[A]
Inc.,
Bureau,
party
opposes
summary Racing
who
motion for
Protective
105 R.I.
(1969).
611-12,
285,
by 605,
proving
carries the burden of
289
however,
any
competent
plaintiff,
evidence the existence
a dis
does not cite
statute
duty on
puted
imposes
material
issue of fact and cannot
or ordinance that
defen
or
mall. Addi
allegations
plead
rest on
denials in the
dant to
at the
ings
similarly inapplicable
are
legal opinions.”
exceptions
or on conclusions or
tional
Design,
Accent
Inc.
East
Collision &
Store
v. Marathon
to this case. Bee
Coast
(R.I.
House,
Restoration, Inc.,
Inc.,
1223,
(recog
742
at 276
1225
A.2d
1996). Rathеr,
exception
per
an
opposing party
nizing
has
an
contractors
work);
forth,
inherently dangerous
Bal-
forming
affirmative
to set
affidavits
Fabrics,
Co.,
of,
by the
of reasonable
Realty
Dee
exercise
let
Inc. v. Four
knows
(1974)
discovered,
621-22,
A.2d
care
112 R.I.
6-7
would have
Kurczy v.
exceptions
Joseph
condition.”
St.
Veterans
(recognizing additional
(R.I.
(1)
Inc.,
Association,
independent
rule
A.2d
contractor
when:
2003)
Friendly
Ice
independent
performs work
Tancrelle
(quoting
contractor
(R.I.2000)).
A.2d
“likely
Corp.,
nature
to Cream
inherent
may delegate the
precautions
Although
harm
are
a landowner
proper
cause
unless
taken,”
performance
of a
to an
“where
owner
contractor,
Re
formally
§to
425 of the
accepting
pursuant
structure without
statement,
thereby
cannot
practical
[liabil
con-
“he
avoid
contractor’s work assumes
ity
non-performance
it to
by appropriating
for]
trol
the use
*4
built.”).
duty.”
Mayor
City Council
Rowley
it is
which
494,
Baltimore,
456,
Md.
505 A.2d
305
of
that no
Presumably
recognized
aware
(1986).
499
exceptions
independent contractor
to
apply, plaintiff
rule
asks this Court
howev
plaintiffs complaint,
(Second)
§ 425
adopt
of the Restatement
er,
premises
not include a claim for
does
(1965).
provides
425
that:
Torts
Section
8(a)(1)
liability. Pursuant
Rule
independent
an
con-
employs
“Onе who
Procedure,
Superior
Rules of Civil
Court
tractor to
in safe condition land
maintain
claim for relief must contain “a short and
the
open
entry
which he
holds
plain
showing
of the claim
statement
public as
of
is
place
his
business
Although
the
to relief.”
pleader
entitled
liability
subject
physical
for
the same
the
plaintiffs complaint
not “set out
need
negli-
by
harm
the contractors
caused
her
precise
theory upon which his or
legal
maintain the
gent failure to
land
based,”
give
must
complaint
claim
the
condition,
reasonably
in
safe
adequate no
party
“the
fair and
opposing
in his
he had retained its maintenance
type
tice
the
of claim
asserted.”
of
own hands.”
Hendrick,
791
Hendrick
(R.I.2000)
Baskin, 650
(quoting
of vicari-
Bresnick v.
policy-based
Section
is a
rule
(R.I.1994)
Haley v.
invite A.2d
liability.
business
ous
When
owners
(R.I.
Lincoln,
premis-
of
onto
Town
“public
members
the
of
1992)).
liberal
policy
these
[public] policy
“The
behind
purposes,
es
business
in our
pleading
simple
is a
one: cases
against allowing them to
rules
concerns counsel
summari
system
disposed
are not to be
liability by hiring
shield themselves
ly
grounds.”
Net
on arcane or technical
Valenti v.
contractors.”
848).
Inc.,
Haley, 611 A.2d at
(quoting
142 N.H.
Properties Management,
(1998).
633, 710 A.2d
rule, this
the liberal
Applying
pleading
sufficiency of
recognized
§
Court has
the
text of
425 of the
Based on the
Restatement,
when the claims asserted
complaints
section
even
it is clear
complaints
specificity.
within those
lack
only
liability claims.
applies
Hendrick,
law, For
in
this Court
liability
example,
Under Rhode Island
Superior
held
the
Court erred
care
landowners must “exercise reasonable
un-
party’s pleadings
reasonably
failing
ex
to consider
safety
*
* *
§§
der
7-1.1-90 and 7-1.1-90.1.
in
G.L.
on the
pected
Hendrick,
That case
wanton, reckless, willful, prose- malicious claim, negligence premises liability al a cutions and process.” abuses of Id. at claim, negligent supervision or a claim for Thus, 352 n. 2. given defendants were hiring. of plаintiffs allegation “more than type sufficient notice of the “negligent security,” provide failure to claim” that was asserted them. plaintiffs complaint we understand in this Id. at 353. only case a general negli as claim for plaintiffs case, complaint in this gence. general To succeed on a claim for however, substantially specific negligence, plaintiff less than that must demonstrate the complaints “reasonably at issue in Hendrick and defendant did not act as Butera. The complaint prudent [person] issue here would under the circum assailant, broadly that Fogarty states “a male stances.” v. John E. Vanvooren 335, to pose Hospital, knоwn the defendant to an Memorial 113 R.I. that, bodily (holding immediate threat of harm to the A.2d to avoid plaintiff negligence, was allowed to remain on the liable for “one must act premises” reasonably prudent [person] and that “was as a would [mall] beaten, circumstances”); physically Breaux v. assaulted and battered under (La.1976) State, upon the above-described assailant 326 So.2d 483-84 that, claim, (recognizing negligence of the defendant.” The com- alleges plaintiffs inju- security guard further will be held to the standard of, proximate reasonably prudent ries were “a direct and result of other Thus, guards). general to under that claim as a prevail theo- classification of the claim for This failure chal- liability, plaintiff negligence. ry of would have to dem- ruling is lenge justice’s the motion deemed security guard onstrate the was conclusive on our Although this issue. act by failing reasonably prudent as a novo, summary judgment review of is de it security guard acted under would have taking not without limits. The of an circumstances, negligence imputing appeal does not appealing par- Conversely, defendant.1 to succeed on a apple. awith second bite at the For liability, plaintiff claim would example, party may not assert an argu- have had to demonstrate that RIBI’s neg- appeal presented on ment that was not ligence constituted a direct failure de- below. Allstate Insurance Co. Lombar- to fulfill fendant di, (R.I.2001). Similarly, premises. only this Court will review evidence that Moreover, in granting sum justice. before the motion at 870- defendant, mary judgment in favor of challenge 71. Without a motion commented, justice justice’s motion “this failure to rule on a liabil- ity one claim this we limit our sounding is not review justice to whether the trial erred in grant- liability which would warrant different summary ing general on a claim analysis.” grant He then proceeded negligence. summary judgment in favor of defendant based contractor rule plaintiffs are unwilling We to excuse it applies cases. chаllenge expressly granted neither justice’s ruling this is not a nor denied claim under liability case. is not willing This Court *6 premises liability plaintiff state’s law. The past look the state of the ambiguous plead- challenge justice’s ings, justice’s specific does not the motion conclu- and, illness, position given takes 1. The dissent the that the com- the his "nature of mental adequately premis- a for included claim appreciated necessity she should have the for liability. Although respect es Thus, ac- exercising Id. at 715. such control.” dissent, knowledge points the raised the recognizing that have landowners liberality especially in in this state's persons prevent third whom allow to use pleading, rules of we believe this causing bodily intentional inartfully beyond pale drafted the so as to creating harm or an unreasonable risk of liberality specifi- of what allows. The dissent others, such harm to Court held the this portion cally plaintiff’s to a refers com- civilly defendant liable could be held for her plaint where it that defendant contrast, negligence. at 709. In this case Id. knowingly dangerous allowed individual commercial, possible duty the of a concerns premises, thereby causing plain- remain on its residential, Also, rather than landowner. the dissent, injuries. According tiff's this liability Volpe predicated defendant's in duty recognized allegation is similar to the ability the on her to control conduct of a third Volpe Gallagher, Court in Here, allega- at party. there is no and, thus, (R.I.2003), provided sufficient no- any tion that defendant had control over in- premises liability tice that a claim was may been strumentalities that have used in brought Volpe, plaintiffs asserted. suit on plaintiff the attack or over attacker against the after the defendant's defendant directly Volpe appli- is not himself. Because mentally ill adult and killed the de- son shot case, any similarity phrasing cable to this neighbor. gun used in kill- fendant’s The plaintiff's complaint between ing prop- been defendant’s had stored on the changе recognized Volpe does not our con- erty. Id. at 703. evidence indicated that The plaintiff's complaint clusion to in- her son’s failed defendant had control over abili- liability. deadly weapon clude a claim to store the her home for Court is Superior not and the did assert sion defendant, the case shall be papers fact that liability claim and the affirmed. on fact that the mo- Court. appeal, Superior on relies remanded to justice analyzed only this case under tion Based on general negligence standard. Justice, FLANDERS, with whom facts, sponte not sua
these this Court -will joins, dissenting. FLAHERTY Justice premises liability law to review a apply do not respectfully dissent. We We summary judgment completely on a dis- fails to plaintiffs complaint agree that the on tinct claim. Based liability for include a claim theory only issue is wheth- PFL Life Insurance the defendant responsible can be for RIBI’s er defendant (PFL). Black’s According Company security lapse; allegedly negligent (7th 1999), Dictionary “prem- Law ed. alleged security lapse whether RIBI’s con- liability” is defined as landowner’s “[a] ises a breach of defendant’s stitutes or activi- liability tort conditions reasonably premises. Tanc- relle, premises.” ties on the § A.2d at 752. Because 425 of the Restatement does not affect the inde- Island “premise-liability lаw Rhode pendent pertains contractor rule as it duty upon own- imposes an affirmative claim, general negligence our decision possessors property: ‘to exer- ers and adopt bearing that section would have no safety of cise reasonable care for the plaintiffs appeal on this case. Accord- to be on expected if ingly, adopt even we were to * * * including] an obli- defendant would not be liable for RIBI’s the risks of a protect against gation negligent security service “as [it] dangerous existing condition had retained maintenance in [the mail’s] the landowner knows premises, provided (Second) оwn hands.” Restatement [its] of, of reasonable care byor the exercise Tents 425. discovered, would have ” Despite grave this Court’s concerns over Joseph Veter- Kurczy condition.’ St. ability escape landowners’ Association, Inc., ans *7 on unsafe conditions their (R.I.2003) Friendly (quoting Tancrelle v. through hiring of contrac- (R.I. 744, 752 Corp., Ice 756 A.2d Cream tors, adopt we decline to 425 of the 2000)). Restatement this time the reasons Here, alleged that defen- complaint right set forth above. Given the facts and Newport shopping PFL dant owned here, circumstances, present which are not negligently It that PFL mall. also may revisit the issues of this Court premises when provided security for these liability. they pertain as dangerous individu- knowingly it allowed
Conclusion there, and this asserted al to remain herein, cause of proximate was the negligence reasons indicated For the injuries.2 last term we Just plaintiffs appeal is denied and dismissed Mall, Newport in the located allegations plaintiff’s com- known as the specific 2. The in were, pertinent part, Newport, in as follows: City Newport[,] County State of of Island, pertinent At all times to this com- "3. Lot 75 on Rhode and identified as of plaint, was the owner of certain Defendant Newport Tax Assessor's Plat buildings, improve- property, with the real ments[,] and common areas attempted ity fail to fathom the duty of we “recognize[d] that landowners prevent possessors property in case “demons- distinction this between to use permit third whom security guard trating] intentionally harming property reasonably prudent act by failing to bodily creating or unreasonable risk acted under the security guard would have gen to the exception harm to others is an circumstances, imputing duty eral rule that ‘a landowner has [no] [PFL],” “demonstrating] that RIBI’s criminal protect another from intentional security-guard negligence con- firm’s] [the parties place acts of third which take on to fulfill [PFL] stituted a direct failure ”way.’ adjacent property or thе premises.” Re- safe (R.I. Volpe Gallagher, 821 A.2d that such spectfully, opinion we are of the 2003) Strack, Ferreira v. (quoting all) (if it exists at is one that distinction (R.I.1994)). If a land residential in this legal significance has no whatsoever owner, Volpe, as in can be found liable proper- case because in either situation the knowingly allowing individuals to remain injured patron mall ty owner’s question engage in and to property as a devolves from his status that create in activities thereon owner, characterizing not from the claim injury par unreasonable risks of for third sounding general negligence, in as one ties, then a commercial landowners fortiori negligеntly providing security, prem- or PFL, general public such as who invite the liability. ises can held liable for premises, onto their Thus, in our engaging in such conduct. 8(a) Moreover, to Rule pursuant judgment, complaint it —even Procedure, no Superior Court Rule of Civil liabili “premises never used the words claim; required to state a magic words are ty” adequately alleged a breach of defen — rather, required complaint all that is of a shop Newport dant’s as owner of a the claim plain “a short and statement of premises for ping mall to entitled to showing pleader public. of the invited other members * * * relief, a demand for words, contrary “parenthеtical” de plain A pleader relief the seeks.” for the justice on this termination required plead tiff “to the ultimate is not subject this com (“[p]arenthetically * * * Haley v. proven.” that must be facts sounding not one plaint is (R.I. Lincoln, Town liability”), plain believe that we 1992). significantly, plaintiff is not Most fact, did, in prem sound tiffs precise legal “to set out the theo required, are never liability. Significantly, ises claim is based.” ry upon which his her a con why reached told *8 complaint required is “is that the Id. What trary And even the conclusion. opposing party adequate fair and gives the a majority attempts significant to draw type of the of claim asserted.” notice it calls “а what distinction between a generality such statement a Id. negligence” premises-liabil- “[G]reat claim for 13, 1995, by plaintiff injuries the a male "8. The sustained June "6. On or about of, proximate result but defendant, were a direct and assailant, to the known to, defendant’s, [sic] its' not limited employees pose agents, servants and/or servants, employees agents, [sic] and/or bodily harm threat immediate security, provide reck- on the plaintiff allowed to remain was carelessness, lessness, misfeasance and/or premises. above described negligence any on the malfeasance without part plaintiff.”
1123
who is
possessor
landowner or
comрlaint gives
because a
long
is allowed” so
as
posi-
claim.
is in the best
property
fair notice to the defendant of the
in control of
by the
specific
In the
context of this
harm caused
protect
Id.
tion to
any dangerous
or
use of the
allege
prove
must
some
“the invitee
* * *
Page
may
that
arise there. W.
condition
act
the owner which
specific
al.,
on the
duty
et
Prosser and Keeton
amounts in the law to a breach of
Keeton
(5th
1984).
Torts,
him;
ed.
owed to
that the breach of
57
386
[and]
Law of
duty
proximate
cause of the
duty
premises
This
* *
injury sustained
Dawson v.
comprehensive
invitees is one that
Auditorium, Inc.,
R.I.
Rhode Island
Co.,
Refining
scope. Molinari
Sinclair
(1968).
116, 124-25,
(1973).
490, 493,
A.2d
111 R.I.
al-
judgment,
complaint,
In our
circumstances, actionable
appropriate
“In
ideally
than
clear in
though perhaps less
a reason
may be found where
draftsmanship, sufficiently alleged that
foreseen
ably prudent person would have
duty
mall owner breached a
defendant
existing
a
condition
on the
adequate security to
invitees such
injury
could cause
to business
plaintiff
present
while
were
on the
Thus, although
the owner of
invitees.”
premises,
sup-
mall’s
and that this breach
“not an insurer of the
such
posedly
plaintiffs injury.
caused
safety,
exercise
[it must]
invitee’s
mere fact that the
does
care to determine whether
reаsonable
phrase “premises liability”
mention
in a safe condition for the
premises are
legal duty
the landowner’s
to maintain the
things
to do those
for which
invitee
safe condition for
493-94, 304
invitation was issued.” Id. at
public
should not
invited
be deemed
A.2d at 653.
deficiency
constitute a fatal
in a notice-
jurisdiction
pleading
such as Rhode Island.
by this case is
legal question posed
duty to use reason-
whether a landowner’s
law,
This
is so because—as matter of
invitees en-
protect
able care to
business
regardless
of whether the
in-
duty,
certain circum-
compasses
under
an allegation
cludes such
in the com-
stances,
against or
provide protеction
possessor
landowner
[or
—“a
security from the intentional criminal acts
property]
has
exercise reason-
premis-
that occur on the
persons
of third
safety
able care
reason-
date,
es. To
this Court has not addressed
ably expected
to be on the
* *
Ferreira,
compare
But
precise
issue.
Tancrelle,
752;
756 A.2d at
Daw-
(holding that a land-
1124 * * * however, to remain on ly plaintiff have harm to the
Many jurisdictions, other Thus, premises.” giv- property owner’s the above described held that a commercial the issue of whether allegations, from the crimi en these protect invitee of the mall can be held persons nal or the failure to PFL as the owner acts third negligent secu- “security” allegedly liable RIBI’s provide to business invitee for circumstances, rity fall is no different from the issue may, lapse under certain alleged security lapse con- duty pos within the of the landowner or whether RIBI’s duty of defendant’s to keep to stituted a sessor of breach premises. the context reasonably purposes safe for the safe case, attempted this such an distinction E.g., Taylor invitation. v. Centennial Bowl, Inc., 114, 561, any legal significance. that is without CaLRptr. 65 Cal.2d 52 one 793, (1966); 416 P.2d 797 Stewart v. Feder plaintiff And even it is true Stores, Inc., 234 Department ated Conn. challenge appeal on explicitly does not 597, 753, (1995); 662 A.2d 761-62 Jardel statement, justice’s conclusory (Del. 518, Hughes, Co. v. 525 ruling summary-judgment on the when Haskins, 1987); 261 Ga. Corp. Lau’s * * * motion, this “[pjarenthetically (1991); 491, 474, 476-77 Ameri 405 S.E.2d * * * sounding is not one Hogue, 749 can National Insurance Co. v. plaintiff premises liability,” believe 1254, (Miss.Ct.App.2000); Nal So.2d by contending that PFL implicitly does so Inc., 50 N.Y.2d Helmsley-Spear, lan v. duty to evade its to should not be allowed 451, 606, 407 N.E.2d 429 N.Y.S.2d premises for its business invi- provide safe (1980); McClung Square 457-58 v. Delta one or more inde- merely by hiring tees 891, 905 Partnership, Limited 937 S.W.2d manage prop- pendent contractors (Tenn.1996). Saraceno, See Whittaker erty arrange for or N.E.2d 418 Mass. Thus, argument in its to this premises. Co., (1994); Management Walls v. Oxford Court, that “PFL’s plaintiff contends 103, 104(1993); see N.H. in a to maintain the Mall (Second) Torts also Restatement duty,” and non-delegable condition was a (1965).3 to exercise that “landowners have safety of individu- against care for the In this claim reasonable reasonably expected to be on their secu- als PFL for failure Indeed, argu- premises.” plaintiffs whole rity pled in a vacuum. As the was on its contention PFL, appeal ca- turns complaint alleges, it ment that, capacity him a in its that PFL owed premises, as oumer pacity mall that servаnts, shopping em- as the owner through “agents, and/or to an negligently delegated could not be ployees” to have argument, knowingly through contractor. provide security by failed necessarily challenges the motion allowing “a male assailant known action was not justice’s conclusion that this threat of bodi- pose an immediate animals, (Second) of third or harmful acts Torts 3. Restatement provides possessor as follows: to exer- the failure of the (a) open possessor of land who holds it discover that "A care to cise reasonable pur- public entry for his business likely or are to be such acts are done subject to members of poses is done, (b) give warning adequate to or upon the land for while are harm, or avoid the enable the visitors to purpose, physical harm caused such protect it.” them otherwise accidental, intentionally negligent, *10 sounding one liability. public injured And of the who are on the prem- though even PFL appeal may rely- be Otherwise, ises. well-heeled landown- ing on the fact justice utilities, including shopping-mall con- ers— analyzed only this case under a glomerates, companies and insurance such standard, negligence plaintiff convincingly as PFL who in real as dabble estate own- justice assails the motion for doing so be- ers, investоrs, or entrepreneurs —could cause a fair reading of the away legal duty contract their shows that alleged claim premises by simple expedient safe one the owner of a retail-shopping maintenance, entering into management, mall, opened which these to the agreements fly-by-night with general public. “independent may contractors” that issue, today legal judgment-proof
On the merits of this here but we are tomorrow. of the opinion independent-eon- §why This is 425 of the Restatement tractor rule should apply to commer (Second) precludes Torts a landowner or property cial owners such as this defen possessor insulating itself from liabil- dant who invite members of public on ity merely by to business delegat- invitees premises. anWhen owner of com ing property-related duties to an inde- property duty, mercial has a by either pendent contractor.4 exception This to the law, statute or under common independent-contractor rule is linked ex- reasonably safe public to pressly to the the landowner owes use, it cannot duty simply evade this its invitees to maintain property contracting party. with third See Mose reasonably safe condition. See Restate- ley (R.I. v. Fitzgerald, 773 A.2d (Second) (1965). ment Torts With- 2001) curiam) (“The (per impos basis for out exception, a landowner or business ing in premises liability care proprietor could effectively circumvent the cases is that the defendants must have providing safe for the possession and premis control over the public, simply by contracting away invited es.”). Moseley, joint we held that a responsibilities to one or more relative- owner of the property commercial in ques ly irresponsible impecunious par- third (a utility tion pole), could not immunize ties. itself from liability to a member of the Thus, we also would hold that the mo- public injured who was in a collision with justice tion erred when he dismissed the an guy attached merely wire it because summary judgment case on because of the had entered into a maintenance independent-contractor legal rule —a doc- agreement party. with another Id. Even that, opinion, trine in our inapplicable though may such par contracts entitle the to the facts of this situation. The ty in control to obtain cited the case East Coast indemnification or contribution from the Restoration, contractor, independent Allyn, Collision & Inc. v. they should not (R.I.1999), insulate the controlling support owner from liabili A.2d 273 his decision respect with apply independent-contractor the claims of members rule. (Second) subject physical Restatement Torts to thе same provides as follows: harm caused the contractor's chattel in failure to maintain the land or employees "One who condition, safe he had contractor to maintain in condition open in his own entry land which he holds retained its maintenance place as his of business hands.” *11 to at the mall—did not serve the claim of a com- services' But case involved liability the mall from vis-a- mercial tenant its landlord for insulate owner negligence claims of members of damage to a leased automotive vis the plaintiff, allege body public, an electrical fife. the such as who shop caused case, injured premises the wеre because Unlike this it did involve personal-injury claim of a business invitee of an unsafe condition there. injured premises that the own- who reasons, reverse, For these we would possessor opened er or had summary that en- vacate the should
public. East Coast Collision owner, in mall and re- tered favor of the in this case. not have controlled the result for trial to determine mand this case effectively from prevent whether, To landowner of this under the circumstances duty premises evading providing case, duty it PFL breached the owed use, public for the invited we would maintain in a forth in above- adopt principles set reasonably safe condition. §§
quoted 425 and 344 of the Restatement Therefore, apply them to this case.
we would hold upon indepen- relied
erred when he summary grant
dent-contractor rule to owner, thereby
judgment to the mall insu- liability for its
lating this landowner alleged negligence adequately safe- TAYLOR Gertrude premises that it invited the guarding the public use. REALTY, FLORA INC. MASS. short, if was a ever there this is it. The breach 2002-681-Appeal. No. pro- of this mall owner’s asserted Supreme Court of Rhode Island. solely arose from its status as vide question. the owner of the Jan. open were held
Because for business and commercial indisputably the mall owner
purposes, of that invited
owed a to the members including plaintiff, to maintain
public, in a safe condition. it to of that was for aspect
And one security for invited
provide reasonable particular factual
patrons at that mall. that existed
circumstances §§ set forth
Applying principles Restatement, hold we would
and 344 of the fact that the mall owner the mere firm another into a contract with
entered manager that the manage the mall—and another inde- arranged yet with
thereafter securi- for it to
pendent contractor