Battaglia v. Lombardi
| Decision Date | 05 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2020-91-Appeal., No. 2020-122-Appeal.,PC 14-5335 |
| Citation | 273 A.3d 135 |
| Parties | James R. BATTAGLIA v. James J. LOMBARDI III, Treasurer for the City of Providence, et al. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Michael J. Stevenson, Esq., for Plaintiff.
Michael A. Calise, Esq., for Defendant.
Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ.
Justice Lynch Prata, for the Court.
These consolidated cases came before the Supreme Court on cross-appeals from a final judgment of the Superior Court entered in favor of the defendant, James J. Lombardi III, Treasurer for the City of Providence (the city). On appeal, the plaintiff, James R. Battaglia (plaintiff or Battaglia), contends that the trial justice erred in granting the city's motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. In its cross-appeal, the city asserts that the trial justice should have granted judgment as a matter of law in its favor on additional grounds. For the reasons stated herein, we vacate the judgment of the Superior Court and direct that the Superior Court reinstate the jury verdict.
At approximately 7:30 p.m. on February 28, 2013, plaintiff and his wife arrived at Snookers, a sports bar located on Ashburton Street in Providence, Rhode Island. The couple began searching for parking but were unsuccessful at finding a spot in the parking lot across the street from the bar. As such, Battaglia testified, they drove around the bar "at least twice, maybe three times," before his wife pointed out a parking spot on the street. The parking spot was located underneath a bridge, and plaintiff described the lighting as "pretty much very black." The plaintiff parallel parked his vehicle in the spot, shifted the vehicle into park, and shut the vehicle off. The plaintiff's wife testified that, as she went to open the door to exit the vehicle, she realized that "something is hitting the door." Battaglia proceeded to exit the vehicle and "went around the back of the car" to investigate what was obstructing his wife's door. He testified that, on the sidewalk next to his wife's door, he encountered "a piece of wood" that was "a loose pallet on the side of [the] road[.]" He attempted to move the pallet against a nearby chainlink fence; he testified: "I lifted up the pallet to push it against the chain link fence, and my whole body just went right down this open manhole that I had no idea was there."
As a result of falling into the manhole, plaintiff suffered a broken tibia and fibula in his left leg. On October 30, 2014, plaintiff filed the instant negligence action against the city and various "John Doe" defendants. A two-day jury trial was held in the Superior Court on September 18 and 19, 2019. At trial, William Bombard, the acting public works director for the city at the time of the incident, testified that, beginning in August 2012, the city was experiencing "a significant problem" with manhole covers being stolen and sold for scrap. Apparently, by November 2012 the thefts had reached "epidemic proportions," and the public works department was requesting additional funds from the city to remedy the problem. In 2012 and 2013 more than 200 manhole covers were stolen in the city.
During that time, the city was unable to immediately replace all of the stolen manhole covers because the supply could not keep up with the demand. Therefore, the public works department developed a hierarchy of hazardous conditions, whereby manhole covers from lesser-traveled streets would be taken up and used to replace stolen manhole covers in higher-traffic areas. If a manhole cover was removed, Bombard testified, the city's usual practice was to put down a metal plate or pallet to cover the open manhole and "provide adequate safety measures, including barrels and cones * * *."
Additionally, the sewer division for the city was instructed "to make the manholes safe[,]" and, upon responding to a missing manhole cover, a crew would cover the hole with plywood then leave cones or barrels to identify the hazard. David Mambro, the superintendent for sewer construction for the city at the time of trial, testified that "[c]ones would be four cones around with caution tape" or a "[b]arrel would be the barrel put on top of the pallet or plywood." The city employed these warning measures because it wanted to call attention to the hazardous area. Mambro stated that it was never the city's practice to put a pallet over a manhole without leaving identifying cones or barrels.
Bombard also testified that the city kept a log on missing manhole covers and would list the location of the missing cover, when the city was notified, and when the cover was repaired or replaced. However, the city's tracking system did not include the manhole at issue on Ashburton Street. The plaintiff's wife testified at trial that there were no barrels, cones, or tape surrounding the area where plaintiff was injured.
Likewise, plaintiff testified that the pallet covering the manhole was not painted, and there was no yellow tape, barrels, or cones. If there had been any warning devices, Battaglia testified, he would not have parked his vehicle there and would have instead driven on. The testimony of William Randall, superintendent of the city's sewer department, revealed that, sometime after March 1, 2013, he went to the scene of the incident and found a manhole with a pallet over the top of it and a barrel nearby.
At the close of plaintiff's case-in-chief, and again at the close of all the evidence, the city moved for judgment as a matter of law. On both occasions, the city argued that the trial justice should enter judgment in its favor because plaintiff failed to present evidence that the city caused the defect or had notice—either actual or constructive—of the defective condition. Additionally, in support of its first motion for judgment as a matter of law, the city argued that the public duty doctrine granted the city absolute immunity. The city summarily argued that the exceptions to the public duty doctrine did not apply, but did not argue any defect in plaintiff's proof regarding the elements of the egregious conduct exception. In opposing the city's motion for judgment as a matter of law, plaintiff cited the city's sworn interrogatory answers, wherein the city admitted that it had placed the wooden pallet over the open manhole. The plaintiff argued that the city knew of the problem and had a duty of reasonable care.
On both occasions the trial justice reserved decision on the city's motion. At the conclusion of the presentation of evidence, the trial justice indicated that she would have a "charge conference" with the attorneys to "finalize" the jury instructions. The city's proposed jury instructions did not include any instructions on the public duty doctrine, but the instructions did acknowledge the city's duty to keep sidewalks reasonably safe. The plaintiff's proposed jury instructions did include instructions on the egregious conduct exception to the public duty doctrine. The instructions ultimately given by the trial justice to the jury did not instruct the jury in any way whatsoever on the public duty doctrine or its exceptions. Neither party objected to the final instructions given to the jury.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and awarded him $87,500 in damages. Thereafter, the city renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law, again arguing that plaintiff had failed to prove that his injuries were caused by a defective condition that the city knew of or should have known of, and further arguing that the city was immune from liability pursuant to the public duty doctrine. Specifically, the city argued that a defective condition did not exist because a sidewalk with an open manhole covered by a wooden pallet was reasonably safe. The city further argued that, even if a defective condition were found to exist, the city did not cause the defect and did not have notice of the defect. Lastly, the city contended that the public duty doctrine shielded it from liability because "[t]he application of a pallet and other safety devices on top of a manhole which is missing a cover is of a type of discretionary governmental action." Although the city argued that there was no evidence that would allow a jury to conclude that the city acted in an egregious manner, the city did not substantively address any defects in plaintiff's proof regarding the elements of the egregious conduct exception.
On November 1, 2019, the trial justice rendered an oral pronouncement granting the city's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the ground that the public duty doctrine shielded the city from liability.
The trial justice began her decision by addressing whether the city had actual or constructive notice of a defective condition. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the trial justice concluded that there was evidence that the city "was aware of, and had notice of, and indeed created the condition of placing the wooden pallet over an otherwise exposed manhole without a traffic cone or traffic barrel[.]" The trial justice then proceeded to find, for purposes of the Rule 50 motion and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, that the presence of a wooden pallet without a warning device constituted a dangerous condition on the sidewalk.
The trial justice then turned to the public duty doctrine to determine "whether the [c]ity can be liable for the mere placement of the wooden pallet on Ashburton Street without a barrel or traffic cone[.]" The trial justice found that the maintenance of streets and sidewalks is a discretionary governmental function, including the manner in which the city addressed the stolen manhole covers. She also determined that none of the exceptions to the public duty doctrine applied because (1) "[t]he maintenance of sidewalks and responding to an exposed manhole is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial