*1 аny Na in which Hospital allege specific Rhode Trust instances non v. Island Bank, (R.I.1998). A.2d their transac- hindered tional “if, Therefore, reviewing the admis Accordingly after because the defendants tions. favorable evidence in the most any substantiating sible failed to offer we nonmoving party, conclude to alleged defenses ac- their material fact exists and genuine note, no issue of promissory sum- enforce judg is entitled to moving party judgment was mary appropriate law,” affirm the of we ment as matter case. judgment. Id. grant summary Conclusion (R.I. Catanzaro,
Rotelli v. 1996)). deny and dismiss the defendants’ entry summary judgment appeal. The disputed The have not defendants in favor of is affirmed. The alleged they promissory executed the may in this case be returned papers they disputed in favor plaintiff; note Superior Court. has the amount only owed. This Court consistently party opposing held that may motion sim
summary judgment not allegations and denials
ply rest pleadings, prove
his or her but must of a dis
competent evidence existence of fact. Accent
puted material issue House, Design, Inc. v. Marathon
Store (R.I.1996). Terry LIEBERMAN S. have not presented defendants here claims, resting support their allegation they on a instead bare dis ASSOCIATES, REALTY BLISS-DORIS agree plaintiffs computation of dam L.P., et al. ages. Consequently, because defendants 2002-191-Appeal. No. burden, grant
failed meet this summary judgment proper. Supreme Court Rhode Island. argued also at the sum- defendants April judgment hearing Capone mary Rose secondarily hable an accommo- dation maker had received no consid- who no ev- The defendants submitted
eration. Capone’s liability
idence Rose
limited, fact, they, conceded before equally
the motion that she was Finally, promissory
liable on the note.
the defendant asserted that estopped enforcing promis- from hin-
sory note because to consum-
dered defendants’ efforts
mate that would have enabled transactions satisfy obli- payment
defendants However, did not
gations. the defendants *2 liability matter arose injury Terry
from S. Lie plaintiff, Fеbruary (plaintiff), berman suffered descending common stair *3 well property on defendants’ 245 Water (hereinafter Street, man Doris Providence plaintiff indepen The was an Building). as a employed part-time dent contractor copywriter Segal and Associ Roberta ates, the on the fourth floor of situated Building.1 plaintiff The testified Doris routinely get the stairs to to she used Friedemann, Providence, for Glenn R. lot. the parking and from the On come Plaintiff. late, incident, night the worked Stillman, Braintree, MA, and David H. leaving until her office on 6:45 After Providence, Fecteau, Page Elizabeth East floor, realized that the hall fourth she for Defendant. on lights lights were off. She turned door, through the hall and went fire C.J., WILLIAMS, Present: The opened which into the stairwell. JJ., FLANDERS, GOLDBERG, and lights plaintiff testified that on (Ret.). SHEA, J. off, but, landing fourth-floor were by lights was lit at a stairway lower-floor lights Rather than turn on landing. OPINION landing, she to walk fourth-floor chose PER CURIAM. guided only by lighting down the stairs warning, lights went below. Without came the Court for oral case midway out between pursuant argument February did call out for floors. She someone pаrties all to an directed order lights thought turn the on because she why the issues appear and to show cause lights out she was alone that the went appeal summarily should not raised mechanically. paused, hoping She considering the argu- After be decided. adjust her to the eyes would darkness. memoranda filed ments of counsel testified, However, plaintiff the stairwell opinion parties, we are of black and she pitch remained continued pro- and shall cause has not been shown holding down the stairs while remaining at this time. appeal ceed to decide for She lost her support. banister stairs, defendants, landing fell Realty footing As- down Bliss-Doris sociates, (defendants) L.P., platform. appeal experienced et al. third-floor She knee, left her left pain tremendous her order out, hip, feet. she following entry motion a new trial and both After cried lights a man turned the on and judgment appeared in favor defendants after negotiate help plaintiff trial. For the reasons set forth be- low, remaining stairs. The was unаble appeal. we defendants’ sustain Realty Building. 1. The Associ- of the Doris defendant Bliss-Doris ates, L.P., also was located on the fourth floor She identify parking the man.2 drove herself lot remained lit until 10 and, night, and returned to work the p.m., Schwartz, home according to were vi- day. next through sible the windows inside the stair- well that plaintiff had used. day complained The next she to her boss defendant, Realty and to Bliss-Doris Asso- The defendants moved for judgment as ciates, having fallen down the stairs. a matter of law at the close of evidence. reported that someone had turned the She denied, motion was and on October her, suggested out on 2001 the returned verdict for defen- building management install motion sensor dants. On November problem. remedy Approxi- filed a motion for a trial pursuant accident, mately one month after mo- 59(a) Rule Superior Court Rules of *4 installed, including tion sensors were in Civil alleged Procedure. She that the ver- the stairwell where had fallen. dict the manager, Irving The defendants’ Schwartz challenged and the instruction to the (Schwartz), thеy testified that were install- jury about require- Rhode Island’s notice electricity prevent ed to conserve and to inment negligence cases. the involving future accident such as one 4, After a on hearing January held plaintiff. plaintiffs motion for a new trial grant- the policies Schwartz testified about and ed. independent Based on his own evalua- practices place at the time of the acci- tion of the evidence and testimony, they pertained dent as maintenance of justice trial held the court that could not building’s areas. common The tenants sustain the that verdict defendants including the building, Segal Roberta were not negligent, and that reasonable Associates, paid a portion and their rent minds could not differ the ruling. He to maintain the common areas. Under the also said that the court committed an error building agreement, lease if the operating of law in charging jury on sepa- notice increased, for costs the common areas rately negligence from its other instruc- paid percentage tenants of that increase. tions.3 agreement The lease with Roberta Segal The timely defendants filed notice of and that Associates also indicated the land- appeal. They argue lord would failed to supply electrical for the halls, meet her burden in a stairways, passageways liability and diming hours, which required proof that a defined defective existed; condition weekdays 8 a.m. that defendants had p.m. Saturdays to 10 no- However, condition; a.m. tice of 9 to noon. Schwartz and that testi- crew, fied that their failure make cleaning premis- who worked to warn or p.m. typically from 5 to 10 es safe had p.m., proximately turned off caused 7 approximately injury. argue The defendants manager justice charged 2. The and treasurer of Bliss-Doris 3. The trial with Associates, L.P., Schwartz, Realty Irving an extensive on the instruction standard for designated speak behalf of defendants. premises liability case. In a He cleaning testified that members of a four justice side bar trial conference the indicated crew, man, inсluding duty were one gave that he was not sure whether he However, night February wheth- danger instruction on notice or defect. er the crew male member turned off the justice gave subsequently separate The trial person helped plaintiff or was the who jury. notice instruction to the not determined at trial. 670 deny grant in- The trial decision lights by an unknown switch of
sudden
reviewing
trial after
not amount to a defective
a motion
dividual does
argue
commenting
credibili
defendants also
condition. The
charged
notice
disturbed
ty
of thе witnesses “will
be
they could not be
sug-
or mis
plaintiff presented
[or
no
unless he
has overlooked
she]
previous
were
similar
gesting that
there
material and relevant evidence
conceived
stairway;
although
clearly
English,
incidents in the
wrong.”
or was otherwise
until
provide lighting
they
Kurczy
were bound
v. St.
A.2d
1149
787
Association,
to the
with Rober-
p.m., pursuant
lease
Joseph Veterans
Associates, plaintiff was not
Segal
(R.I.1998)). Thus,
ta
“[i]f
A.2d
rights
had no
to the contract and
party
that the verdict
determines
lease;
prepon-
the fair
under
of the еvi
preponderance
fair
supported
of the evidence
derance
dence, a
should
ordered.”
new trial
be
jury’s verdict.
Mandarelli,
A.2d
Montecalvo v.
Epstein,
(citing Barboto v.
plaintiff argues
(1964)).
97 R.I.
for a new
properly granted
motion
However,
if
determines
verdict was
trial. She
submits
could
that reasonable minds
differ
*5
preponder-
of the fair
against the
verdict,
verdict should not be
of
defendants
ance
the evidence because
Saber,
(citing
671
Co.,
v.
112
ing
proximate
Cutroneo F.W. Woolworth
cause of
plaintiffs]
[the
(1974)).
56,
R.I.
58
injuries.” Kurczy,
FLANDERS, Justice, dissenting. clude that preponderance the fair not—if reversing the trial the overwhelming quantum order —of trial, majority con- evidence established that the landlord was negligent cludes reasonable minds could differ it breached a duty because whether the safeguard about defendant landlord was
negligent failing plaintiff injured to exercise reasonable where this herself and *8 safety care for the that jury’s negligenсe” finding of its tenants and other “no was persons reasonably Indeed, to expected contrary given be on the to this evidence. I premises. do not Respectfully, manual-lighting system believe that inwas occurred, that this is deciding place anyone the issue we should be when this accident appeal from of granting flip a new-trial could off the switch while tenants Rather, motion. the issue for us on and other invitees ap- were descend- justice, is peal ing up whether the trial to four of in flights he stairs the eve- indepеndent judgment ning, exercised his in them thereby plunging his into relative capacity “superjuror” leaving as a and when them he darkness and to stumble
674 fight justice’s in larly of the trial instruc- Signifi- toward the exit.
down the stairs and at tion on do not cantly, comparative after this accident occurred —I cost, liberty believe we to conduct a de relatively the landlord installed are scant presented, fighting that novo of the evidence equipment motion-sensor review here, fights-off justice, trial dangerous problem. especially when the solved this requisite two-step pro- has conducted the In trial my judgment, presented of evaluating cess that to conclude these circum entitled in fight at trial instructions and negli proved that landlord was stances jury’s deciding of verdict whether an unsafe and gent maintaining it clearly wrong because to “fail[ed] jury’s no-negligence finding that respond truly to the merits of contro- pre favor the landlord was versy, to administer substantial fail[ed] ponderance of the most of which the fair justice, and [was] that the landlord was at fault for indicated Winoker, the evidence.” Izen v. creating allowing and defective condi (R.I.1991). 824, In these 828-29 circum- premises. its It must be to exist on stances, give is to “great our mandate that of a new “[t]he remembered weight” new-trial deci- ground trial on the the verdict sion, it unless refusing to disturb he has every is in in contrary to the evidence or material and “overlooked misconceived a substitution of conclusion of stance clearly otherwise relevant evidence or was finding for a presiding wrong.” Depository, Inc. v. International Grande, 438, 437, 45 jury.” v. R.I. Spiegel State, (quot- (1924). But, as this A. Court Izen, 829). ing 589 A.2d at pointed Epstein, in Barbato v. 97 R.I. out (1964), that is Although majority states “there enough to warrant a rever scarcely reason is no case in Rhode Island supporting law Thus, justice. sal of the act of turning the contention that the off conclusion, supports his I evidence that adequately is itself a working fights defect say clearly cannot dangerous I property,” condition on he determined that the wrong when do not that there has to be case law believe verdict failеd render sub no-negligence directly point a defect a dan- justice in this case. As the trial stantial can gerous property condition on be la- justice found: variety infinite beled as such. The of de- created by “The situation the defen- conditions can fects permitted either dants that would such a property precludes propo- arise worker, agent another tenant or event, sition. case law abounds defendants, fights to turn off establishing Rhode and elsewhere Island somebody hallway could have duty tо that landowners have a maintain person causing trip, present been reasonably safe condi- fall causing person causing tion, obligation pro- which includes an injure person themselves.” adequate walkways vide illumination of other join my colleagues ingress egress. if I could means of
But even See, e.g., Dodge Parish Church concluding that reasonable minds could R.I. negli- Transfiguration, differ about whether defendant was *9 (1969). in Illumination of a gent and that the evidence this case building supported could have a verdiсt stairwell commercial used reasonably at night reasonably tenants is not safe plaintiff particu- for either or defendant — here, when, out anyone plaintiff as can turn cide whether was comparatively when, time, any negligent or whether the de- here, management building has proximately fendants caused ac- policy allowing to do cleaning crew jury cident. The also never reached the p.m. though so at 7 even tenants separate questions posed to it about stay until business invitees are allowed to plaintiff whether knew of the existence of a contractually and the landlord is danger and subjectively appreciated the period. the area obliged during this any danger unreasonable nature of known considerations, factual I am Given these voluntarily or encountered the same. justice say hard-pressed Thus, I might well agree my with col- wrong when clearly was he concluded leagues, so, if it were my province do this warranted a new because case “that the evidence this case could have finding no-negligence was reasonably supported a verdict for either weight of the evidence. or the plaintiff defendant.” But be- however, colleagues, My conclude other- jurors cause the answered only the first they wise because “find that evidence special interrogatory that put to them case reasonably sup- this could have in this concluding that defendants case— ported a verdict for either or were not negligent they were not to told — the defendant.” other address the issues in- this I Respectfully, problems cluding plaintiffs comparative have several negligence, First, reasoning. they with this not our otherwise would it is have been re- quired appeal they brief on to “find” the evi- to address before whether could have in this case for reasonably dence could have reached a verdict either or Thus, a verdict for supported either or defendant. job, That properly
defendant. is the trial confined his new-trial analysis and, justification, ample came to a whether he dеfendant was contrary negligent. conclusion. do not review Rather, give that decision de novo. we it reasons, For I these believe the trial “great weight,” it un- refusing to disturb entitled to conclude that “ less has he ‘overlooked or misconceived jury’s negligence” “no finding was and relevant
material evidence or was oth- which all of ” clearly wrong.’ erwise International De- pointed to the fact that the defendant land- pository, 603 A.2d at this lord knew should have known that its case, I do believe there is lights-off practicе stair- policy overlooked miscon- all well—before the tenants and business deciding ceived whether the landlord invitees left the un- —created was negligent. Significantly, majority situation, that, therefore, safe its fail- identify any such fails to evidence. ure to motion-sensor lighting install Second, spe- because the answered negligent this accident occurred was under interrogatories, cial it never reached the reason, I circumstances. For question compara- of whether would affirm the motion ' Rather, tively negligent. a new trial. question, simple asked answer defendants negligent?”
“Were Because
they “no,” question answered this the ver-
dict jurors form instructed the not to de-