Bromaghim v. Furney
| Decision Date | 28 October 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 2001-192-Appeal.,2001-192-Appeal. |
| Citation | 808 A.2d 615 |
| Parties | Ernest G. BROMAGHIM v. William FURNEY et al. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Present: WILLIAMS, C.J., LEDERBERG, FLANDERS, and GOLDBERG, JJ.
James J. McKenna, Providence, for plaintiff.
Peter E. Garvey, Providence, for defendant.
This case came before the Court on September 25, 2002, pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. After hearing arguments of counsel and reviewing the memoranda submitted by the parties, we are satisfied that cause has not been shown. Accordingly, we shall decide the appeal at this time.
The defendants, Donna and William Furney (defendants), owners of residential property in the city of Warwick, decided to convert their existing garage into a kitchen. The defendants commissioned the services of an architect. An independent contractor, Joseph Walsh (Walsh), was retained to accomplish the renovation.1 The independent contractor built a set of temporary steps leading into the area under construction. The testimony disclosed that the stairs were constructed of wood and appeared finished and permanently affixed to the house.
On the morning of April 4, 1996, the plaintiff, Ernest G. Bromaghim (Bromaghim or plaintiff) was delivering kitchen cabinets to the residence and was directed by Mrs. Furney to use the side door and the temporary stairs. The plaintiff testified that, before delivering the cabinets, he inspected the steps and the area around the side door but did not discover any defects or unsafe condition. Although the temporary steps appeared to be securely affixed to the structure, the stairs shifted sideways as plaintiff was bringing the cabinets into the construction area, causing plaintiff to severely injure his left knee. Subsequently, plaintiff discovered that the temporary steps were not properly attached to the structure.
The defendants were not involved in the construction or installation of the stairs, nor did they witness or inspect the work done by the independent contractor. Further, there was no evidence introduced suggesting that defendants were aware of any defects in the temporary stairs before plaintiff fell.
At the close of plaintiff's case, the trial justice granted defendants' motion for a judgment as a matter of law, on the ground that defendants are not liable for the negligence of the independent contractor.2 The trial justice further found that there existed a latent defect in the temporary stairs. Consequently, she concluded that defendants had no actual notice of the defect, and therefore were not liable to plaintiff. The plaintiff has appealed. Rule 50(a)(1) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
"If during a trial by jury a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue, the court may determine the issue against that party and may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against that party with respect to a claim or defense that cannot under the controlling law be maintained or defeated without a favorable finding on that issue."
In ruling on a Rule 50 motion, the trial justice must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the adverse party and is obliged to give such party the benefit of all reasonable and legitimate inferences. If the trial justice finds that there exists issues upon which reasonable persons might draw conflicting conclusions, the motion should be denied. Tomaino v. Concord Oil of Newport, 709 A.2d 1016, 1020-21 (R.I.1998) (citing AAA Pool Service & Supply, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 479 A.2d 112, 115 (R.I.1984)); Caranci v. Howard, 708 A.2d 1321, 1327 (R.I.1998).
In general, "one who employs an independent contractor is not liable for the negligent acts of that contractor." East Coast Collision & Restoration Inc. v. Allyn, 742 A.2d 273, 275 (R.I.1999); Ballet Fabrics, Inc. v. Four Dee Realty Co., 112 R.I. 612, 621, 314 A.2d 1, 6 (1974). Specifically, in East Coast Collision, 742 A.2d at 276, we held that the owner-landlords of the premises were not liable to the tenant for the independent contractor's negligence when they did not assume a duty to supervise the work and the activity was not inherently dangerous. Further, an independent contractor, not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peters v. Forster
...Thrift v. Food Lion, Inc., 336 N.C. 309, 442 S.E.2d 504 (1994); Schlender v. Andy Jansen Co., 380 P.2d 523 (Okla.1962); Bromaghim v. Furney, 808 A.2d 615, 617 (R.I. 2002); First Church of Christ Scientist v. City of Seattle, 92 Wash.App. 229, 964 P.2d 374, 377 (1998); Roush v. Johnson, 139 ......
-
Konar v. PFL Life Ins. Co.
...a party who employs an independent contractor generally will not be liable for the negligence of that contractor. Bromaghim v. Furney, 808 A.2d 615, 617 (R.I.2002) (per curiam) (citing East Coast Collision & Restoration, Inc. v. Allyn, 742 A.2d 273, 275 (R.I.1999) (per curiam)). It is undis......
-
Dent v. PRRC, Inc., 2016–129–Appeal (PC 13–5924)
...existed for a long enough time so the owner of the premises should have taken steps to correct [it]." Id. (quoting Bromaghim v. Furney , 808 A.2d 615, 617 (R.I. 2002) ); see also Barone v. Christmas Tree Shop , 767 A.2d 66, 68 (R.I. 2001) ; Massart v. Toys R Us, Inc. , 708 A.2d 187, 189 (R.......
-
Doe v. R.I. Sch. of Design, C.A. No. 18-10-JJM-LDA
...condition that existed for a long enough time for the defendant to have taken steps to correct it. Id. ; see also Bromaghim v. Furney , 808 A.2d 615, 617 (R.I. 2002) (citing Barone v. Christmas Tree Shop , 767 A.2d 66, 68 (R.I. 2002) ).RISD was not, an owner, possessor, or in control of the......