Carlson v. Town of S. Kingstown

• Decision Date: 08 April 2015
• Docket Number: No. 2013–280–Appeal.,2013–280–Appeal.
• Parties: Kathleen CARLSON v. TOWN OF SOUTH KINGSTOWN et al.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

111 A.3d 819

Kathleen CARLSON

v.TOWN OF SOUTH KINGSTOWN et al.

No. 2013–280–Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

April 8, 2015.

Ronald J. Resmini, Esq., Providence, for Plaintiff.

Brian J. Clifford, Esq., Providence, for Defendant.

Present: SUTTELL, C.J., GOLDBERG, FLAHERTY, ROBINSON, and INDEGLIA, JJ.

OPINION

Justice FLAHERTY, for the Court.

In this case, we are once again asked to revisit the scope and applicability of G.L. 1956 chapter 6 of title 32, the Recreational Use Statute (RUS). The plaintiff, Kathleen Carlson, appeals from summary judgment entered in Washington County Superior Court in favor of the defendant, the town of South Kingstown (the town).¹ The plaintiff's claim sounded in negligence and concerned an injury she sustained at a town-owned park while she was a spectator at a little league baseball game. This appeal came before the Supreme Court for argument on February 4, 2015, pursuant to an order directing the parties to show cause why the issues raised in the appeal should not be summarily decided. After hearing argument and examining the memoranda filed by the parties, we conclude that cause has not been shown and we shall proceed to decide the appeal at this time. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.

IFacts and Travel

On July 28, 2010, plaintiff attended her son's little league baseball game at Tuckertown Park in the Wakefield section of South Kingstown. The game was a part of the schedule of South Kingstown Little League, Inc., and the park and field were owned and maintained by the town. Ms. Carlson would later testify by deposition that the game was the league's championship game, that the game was open to the general public, and that no tickets were required to attend. The league had a permit, issued by the town, to host this game, as it did for all its games, but the town charged no fee to use the park. The defendant, through the interrogatory responses and deposition testimony of Theresa Murphy, the town's Director of Leisure Services, said that this was in accordance with a written policy because the league was a nonprofit sports league within the town.

After the game had ended, plaintiff, who had been standing in the area of a set of batting cages located just off the first-base line of the park's lower field, walked towards the concession stand, where she planned to meet her son. Unfortunately, on her way there, plaintiff felt her ankle twist under her and she heard what she believed was the breaking of bones in her leg. Ms. Carlson testified that she never fell to the ground, but “when I took a step on my right leg, I felt my ankle fall into this little divot in the ground.” As a consequence of her stumble into the “divot,” plaintiff broke her right leg. A witness to the injury would later testify by deposition that this “divot” was a part of a “repetitive problem” caused by “kids waiting to get into the batting cage, [when] they dig their cleats into the ground.” There is discrepancy in the record as to the size and shape of the hole that caused plaintiff's injury; plaintiff described the “divot” as “only under two inches but I don't really remember,” while another witness said the hole was, “6, 8 inches across, maybe a little wider than that, a good 8, 10 inches deep.” Ms. Murphy testified that the most recent inspection of the field had been accomplished two days before the incident and that the town had received no notice of any hazardous condition existing at the park. The particular hole in question was filled in by defendant the day after the incident.

It was the town's regular policy to maintain the fields at Tuckertown Park on Mondays and Thursdays; no reports had been received about the area of plaintiff's accident. Asked whether the town was aware of holes near the batting cages being a common problem, Ms. Murphy stated, “I'm not sure it's a common problem, but I am aware that that type of thing can happen.” However, she admitted that it was not uncommon “to find holes in ball fields after people have used them.” Ms. Murphy testified that, if the town had been aware of any potential hazard, it would have had it repaired or fixed. The record is devoid of any similar incidents causing injuries at Tuckertown Park.

On August 6, 2012, plaintiff filed suit, alleging that defendant was “negligent in maintaining the premises of Tuckertown Field,” resulting in plaintiff's injury. The plaintiff, in her interrogatory answers, said that her injury had resulted in several thousand dollars in medical bills.² Discovery in the suit proceeded; depositions were taken from officials of the town and the league, a witness to the incident, and plaintiff herself. Several months later, the town moved for summary judgment because it believed that the RUS, barred plaintiff's suit.³ The plaintiff objected to the motion, citing two exceptions to the RUS's limitation on liability, § 32–6–5(a).⁴ Specifically, plaintiff claimed that defendant had willfully or maliciously failed to guard or warn against a dangerous condition on the land and that plaintiff had been charged for her access to the park. On May 20, 2013, the motion was argued and, in a bench ruling, a justice of the Superior Court granted summary judgment to defendant, saying, “[t]he Recreational Use Statute is still alive and well * * * there's no evidence here that the town was aware of this particular hole and/or the plaintiff was facing that peril before falling into that hole.” The hearing justice went on to say of plaintiff's second argument, that either or both of the fees paid to the league and the taxes paid to the town constitute an admission fee, “[those] are not, quote, charges as contemplated under the Recreational Use Statute.” The plaintiff filed a timely appeal, and, after a minor procedural remand, her case is properly before this Court.⁵

IIStandard of Review

“[T]his Court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo. ” Allstate Insurance Co. v. Ahlquist 59 A.3d 95, 97 (R.I.2013) (quoting Moore v. Rhode Island Board of Governors for Higher Education, 18 A.3d 541, 544 (R.I.2011) ). Our function is to review “the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and we will affirm the judgment if we conclude that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Berman v. Sitrin, 991 A.2d 1038, 1043 (R.I.2010) (Berman I ) (quoting Ouch v. Khea, 963 A.2d 630, 632 (R.I.2009) ).⁶ Although complaints alleging negligence are often fact-intensive and therefore often not well suited for summary judgment, the question of whether a defendant owes a duty to a plaintiff is a question of law that we review on a de novo basis. Berard v. HCP, Inc.,

64 A.3d 1215, 1218 (R.I.2013) (citing Ouch, 963 A.2d at 633 ). In such a case, where a statute touches on the question of the existence of a duty, we apply the statute's clear language, relying on the legislative intent to clarify any ambiguities. Berman I, 991 A.2d at 1043 (citing Kaya v. Partington, 681 A.2d 256, 260 (R.I.1996) ).

IIIDiscussion

On appeal, plaintiff argues that it was error for the hearing justice to grant summary judgment in favor of defendant for three reasons. First, plaintiff argues that the RUS should not apply to the present action because she is not the type of user that the statute contemplates. Second, plaintiff argues that the exceptions in § 32–6–5(a)(1) should apply, because there is a genuine issue of fact as to whether defendant was willful or malicious in its failure to guard or warn against the dangerous condition on the field. Lastly, plaintiff argues that the exception set forth in § 32–6–5(a)(2) applies, either because she had paid a fee to the league or taxes to the town and, as a result, she was charged to use the land. For the reasons set forth below, we see no merit in plaintiff's arguments, and it is our opinion that the result is precisely what the RUS and this Court's prior holdings dictate.

A. The Recreational Use Statute's History

The RUS has had a lengthy and complex history with this Court. See supra, note 3. The RUS began as a statute promulgated in 1978 by the General Assembly for the “salutary purpose” of “encourag[ing] private landowners to make their land free and open to the public for recreational purposes.” Berman I, 991 A.2d at 1043. This encouragement came in the form of a reduced duty of care; users of the land would be considered to be trespassers and the landowner need only “refrain from willful or wanton conduct.” Id. at 1044. In 1996, the RUS was amended and “it is clear from the unambiguous language of the 1996 amendment that the legislature intended to include the state and municipalities among owners entitled to immunity under the statute.”Pereira v. Fitzgerald, 21 A.3d 369, 373 (R.I.2011) (quoting Hanley v. State, 837 A.2d 707, 712 (R.I.2003) ); Berman I, 991 A.2d at 1044 (noting that § 32–6–2(3) was amended by P.L. 1996, ch. 234, § 1). We have on a number of occasions cast a disapproving eye on this expansion of immunity, saying, “the state and its municipalities are presumptively better able to bear the burden of damages” than an injured plaintiff, and that “the statutory scheme does nothing to motivate governmental landowners to make their properties safe.” Smiler v. Napolitano, 911 A.2d 1035, 1042 (R.I.2006) ; see also Lacey v. Reitsma, 899 A.2d 455, 458 (R.I.2006). Nonetheless, we have also been consistent in saying that this Court is not a legislative body; we are bound to apply the statute in light of both its language and our jurisprudence. It is true that in Berman I, 991 A.2d at 1051, a duty was imposed on a municipality for injuries suffered by a plaintiff on land that was recreational in nature. However, in that case, the Court was constrained to address the significance of repeated catastrophic injuries of which the defendant municipality was clearly aware. Id.

B. The RUS is Implicated by Plaintiff's...