Hill v. Nat'l Grid
Decision Date | 21 January 2011 |
Docket Number | No. 2009-214-Appeal.,2009-214-Appeal. |
Citation | 11 A.3d 110 |
Parties | Harry HILL et al. v. NATIONAL GRID et al. |
Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Ronald J. Resmini, Esq., Providence, for Plaintiff.
Stanley F. Pupecki, Esq., Providence, for Defendant.
Present: SUTTELL, C.J., GOLDBERG, FLAHERTY, ROBINSON, and INDEGLIA, JJ.
On an idyllic fall afternoon, a group of youngsters was engaged in the classic American pastime of touch football. Their play was abruptly interrupted when twelve-year-old Austin Hill stumbled and cut himself on a protruding metal post. The plaintiffs filed a complaint for negligence in Providence County Superior Court, alleging that Austin was injured by a dangerous condition on property owned by the defendant, National Grid. The plaintiffs now appeal from a grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant.
This case came before the Supreme Court on December 7, 2010, pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not summarily be decided. After hearing the arguments of counsel and reviewing the memoranda of the parties, we are satisfied that cause has not been shown. Accordingly, we shall decide the appeal at this time without further briefing or argument. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we vacate the judgment of the Superior Court.
On the afternoon of October 4, 2006, Austin Hill accompanied several friends to a grass-covered vacant lot at the corner of Monticello Road and Williston Way in Pawtucket for a game of touch football.1 While he was running, he suddenly tripped over an unseen metal pole that was protruding from the ground. Austin fell on the ground and struck a second metal pole, lacerating his left thigh. Because he was bleeding profusely, Austin hopped on his bike and went home. Austin's mother, Rebecca, brought the boy to a local emergency room, where he received treatment for the laceration. The wound eventually healed, but a permanent scar remains.
Harry and Rebecca Hill filed suit in Superior Court individually and as parents and next-of-kin to Austin and his siblings, Aydan and Jake. In their complaint, the Hills alleged that National Grid negligently maintained its property and that, as a result, Austin suffered injuries.2 The defendant, a public utility that owned the lot, asserted that it owed no duty to Austin under the circumstances because he was a trespasser on its property. The plaintiffs contended that defendant had a duty under the attractive nuisance doctrine. After hearing arguments about the applicability of that doctrine, a justice of the Superior Court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment. She determined that plaintiffs had failed to make any showing that defendant knew or had reason to know that children were trespassing. It is from that decision that plaintiffs have sought review in this Court.
"In reviewing the granting of a motion for summary judgment, we conduct our review on a de novo basis; in doing so, we adhere to the same rules and criteria as did the hearing justice."Classic Entertainment & Sports, Inc. v. Pemberton, 988 A.2d 847, 849 (R.I.2010). "A hearing justice should grant a party's motion for summary judgment 'if there exists no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.' " Id. (quoting Lynch v. Spirit Rent-A-Car, Inc., 965 A.2d 417, 424 (R.I.2009)). In reviewing the evidence, we draw "all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Fiorenzano v. Lima, 982 A.2d 585, 589 (R.I.2009); see also Planned Environments Management Corp. v. Robert, 966 A.2d 117, 121 (R.I.2009); Chavers v. Fleet Bank (RI) N.A., 844 A.2d 666, 669 (R.I.2004). It is the burden of the nonmoving party to prove the existence of a disputed issue of material fact by competent evidence; it "cannot rest on allegations or denials in the pleadings or on conclusions or legal opinions." Classic Entertainment & Sports, Inc., 988 A.2d at 849 (quoting Accent Store Design, Inc. v. Marathon House, Inc., 674 A.2d 1223, 1225 (R.I.1996)); see also Fiorenzano, 982 A.2d at 589; Chavers, 844 A.2d at 669-70; United Lending Corp. v. City of Providence, 827 A.2d 626, 631 (R.I.2003). We have cautioned, however, that "[s]ummary judgment is an extreme remedy that should be applied cautiously." Plainfield Pike Gas & Convenience, LLC v. 1889 Plainfield Pike Realty Corp., 994 A.2d 54, 57 (R.I.2010) (quoting Johnston v. Poulin, 844 A.2d 707, 710 (R.I.2004)).
Since deciding Haddad in 1971, we have had but a few opportunities to consider the attractive nuisance doctrine.4 In applying the doctrine to the situation at issue here, it is useful to consider the cases that have come before this Court recently. In 1992, we affirmed the Superior Court's grant of a directed verdict in favor of the landowner in Bateman v. Mello, 617 A.2d 877, 881 (R.I.1992) ( ). There we concluded that Id. at 880. We further noted that the gas pipe served a useful purpose and, because it was not only the gas pipe, but also a spotlight activated by a preset timer that caused the plaintiff to fall, "that such a coincidental string of happenings could not, under any test of reasonable foreseeability, have been anticipated by [the] defendant." Id.
We next considered the doctrine in Wolf v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 697 A.2d 1082, 1086-87 (R.I.1997). There we affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendant railroad after a twelve-year-old boy was killed tragically while trying to outrun a train on a trestle that extended over the water. In Wolf, we embraced the view of the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions that train trestles, as a matter of law, are not attractive nuisances. Id. ( ). That rule rests on the notion that train trestles are an "obvious danger" to even young prospective trespassers. Wolf, 697 A.2d at 1087 ( ).
Summary judgment is an extreme remedy because it results in the end of the suit. See Plainfield Pike Gas & Convenience, LLC, 994 A.2d at 57. As such, motions for summary judgment should be denied where genuine issues of material fact are present. See Classic Entertainment & Sports, Inc., 988 A.2d at 849. As it did in the Superior Court, defendant argues before us that plaintiffs raised no material facts from which a jury could conclude (1) that defendant knew or had reason to know children were likely to trespass on the property or (2) that there was any dangerous condition on its land ofwhich it knew or had reason to know. The Superior Court agreed with that argument, but we do not.
In our opinion, plaintiffs have raised sufficient facts from which a reasonable jury could conclude that defendant knew or had reason to know trespass was likely.5 First, defendant suggests in its argument that it must know or have reason to know that children are trespassing on...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shire Corp., Inc. v. Rhode Island Department of Tranportation
... ... inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving ... party." Hill v. Nat'l Grid , 11 A.3d 110, ... 113 (R.I. 2011) (quoting Fiorenzano v. Lima, 982 ... ...
-
Mut. Dev. Corp. v. Ward Fisher & Co.
...by competent evidence; it cannot rest on allegations or denials in the pleadings or on conclusions or legal opinions.” Hill v. National Grid, 11 A.3d 110, 113 (R.I.2011) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Horton v. Portsmouth Police Department, 22 A.3d 1115, 1121 (R.I.2011); Young......
-
Felkner v. R.I. Coll.
...the existence of a disputed issue of material fact[.]'" Sullo v. Greenberg, 68 A.3d 404, 407 (R.I. 2013) (quoting Hill v. Nat'l Grid, 11 A.3d 110, 113 (R.I. 2011)). This means that "the issue of fact must be 'genuine.'" Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (......
-
S.W. v. Towers Boat Club, Inc.
...formulation of liability for attractive nuisance. See, e.g., Thomas v. Hansen, 2013 WL 4590634 (D.Utah 2013); Hill v. National Grid, 11 A.3d 110 (R.I.2011); Craig v. Bailey Bros. Realty, Inc., 304 Ga.App. 794, 697 S.E.2d 888 (2010); MacVane v. S.D. Warren Co., LLC, 641 F.Supp.2d 54 (D.Me.20......