Hough v. McKiernan

• Decision Date: 16 January 2015
• Docket Number: No. 2013–89–Appeal.,2013–89–Appeal.
• Citation: 108 A.3d 1030
• Parties: Kevin R. HOUGH v. Shawn P. McKIERNAN et al.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

108 A.3d 1030

Kevin R. HOUGH

v.Shawn P. McKIERNAN et al.

No. 2013–89–Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Jan. 16, 2015.

William M. Heffernan, Esq., Cumberland, for Plaintiff.

Kevin S. Cotter, Esq., Providence, for Defendant.

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

OPINION

Chief Justice SUTTELL, for the Court.

Kevin R. Hough (plaintiff) was severely injured when he was punched by Shawn P. McKiernan, the force of the blow causing Hough to fall backwards and strike his head on the pavement of a street. Immediately prior to this incident, McKiernan had driven by Hough on several occasions in an automobile owned by one Rita Bower, flashing the high beams and taunting Hough as he drove past.

Among the defendants sued by Hough was Quincy Mutual Fire Insurance Company (Quincy), the insurer of the vehicle driven by McKiernan. The plaintiff alleges liability under the provisions of G.L.1956 § 31–33–6, which imputes vicarious liability upon the owner of a vehicle for its consensual use or operation.¹ Hough now appeals from a Superior Court judgment as a matter of law in favor of Quincy. The issue presented in this case concerns the liability of a motor vehicle owner, or her insurer, for injuries caused by the intentional act of a permissive driver, but which act occurred at a distance from the vehicle. Because we conclude that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a causal connection between the vehicle and his injuries, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.

IFacts and Procedural History

On the evening of February 22, 2006, McKiernan drove a black GMC Sonoma truck, owned by one of his parents, to a social gathering at the home of his friend, Brian Burke. The gathering that evening consisted of McKiernan, Burke, Krista Archer, Wade Berard, Brian Petabella, and Samantha Grasso. At one point during the evening, Grasso asked McKiernan for permission to borrow the GMC Sonoma truck to find her boyfriend, Mike Gauthier. McKiernan declined to give her permission.

Notwithstanding his refusal, Grasso found McKiernan's keys and took the truck without permission. Later, Archer allowed McKiernan to use her red Nissan Altima (the Bower or insured vehicle) to search for the truck. This vehicle was owned by Archer's grandmother, Rita Bower. Prior to trial, Quincy admitted that Bower, as the vehicle owner, gave permission to Archer for the regular use of the vehicle and specifically for its use on the evening of February 22 and early morning hours of February 23, 2006. Quincy also admitted that it insured the Bower vehicle on those dates.

McKiernan testified at trial that he thought he was insured on the date in question through an Allstate Indemnity Company (Allstate) automobile policy.² The Allstate policy listed his father, Peter McKiernan, as the named insured and Shawn McKiernan was listed as a “driver” on the declarations page.

After departing his friend's house, McKiernan and his passengers (Archer, Burke, and Berard) drove through Warwick looking for Grasso and the missing truck. As they searched the streets, they came upon two people walking along Davidson Road. The two young men were Hough and Nicholas Messier. According to plaintiff's testimony, as the vehicle approached them, McKiernan rolled down his window and yelled “[v]arious obscenities” at them as the vehicle passed by. McKiernan testified that he considered his insults to be funny jokes about the boys' mothers that amused his laughing companions in the vehicle. McKiernan indicated in his testimony that he circled around and drove by plaintiff and Messier several times, hurling insults and flashing the high beams, as his passengers continued to “egg” him on.

McKiernan testified that, after such passages, he stopped the insured vehicle when he spotted his missing truck. He further testified that he waited some period of time, between five and ten minutes, before exiting the insured vehicle, while plaintiff and Messier talked to the people in his truck. Concerning the proximity of the insured vehicle in relation to Hough, plaintiff testified that McKiernan stopped the car “about two or three car lengths ahead of us.” McKiernan testified that the car was “[t]hree or four car lengths” away from plaintiff and Messier. McKiernan also testified that, as he was sitting in the car, someone flicked a cigarette, which hit him in the face. Agitated and annoyed, McKiernan, along with Burke and Berard, jumped out of the car and chased Messier. McKiernan first shoved Messier, but then instead pursued Hough once Messier demonstrated that he was still holding his cigarette.

Turning his attention to plaintiff, McKiernan swung at him but plaintiff “ducked” thereby avoiding the blow. The plaintiff testified that he then stated, “I'm not going to fight you,” but McKiernan punched him in the chest anyway. According to McKiernan, plaintiff “stiffened up like a board and fell back” to the ground. While Hough lay on the pavement, one of McKiernan's friends “grabbed” him, told him to “get out of here,” and put him in the insured vehicle.³ Acknowledging that he “knew [he] was going to get caught,” McKiernan testified that he fled the scene rather than render assistance to the young man he had just knocked to the ground.

As a result of the assault and battery, Hough suffered a serious head injury, a subdural hematoma. His treating physician removed a portion of his skull in order to relieve the pressure, thereby allowing his brain to swell and eventually heal. The portion of his skull that was removed was then implanted in his abdomen until it could be replaced in his skull. The plaintiff endured a long road to recovery with multiple surgical procedures and rehabilitation, including occupational, physical, and speech therapy.

On September 16, 2008, plaintiff filed suit against McKiernan alleging negligence, assault, and battery. Subsequently, plaintiff amended his complaint three times to add parties and allegations. In the first amended complaint, plaintiff added negligence claims against Phillip and Darlene Burke (parents of Brian Burke),⁴ as well as Diane Archer (mother of Krista Archer).⁵ In the second amended complaint, plaintiff added a negligence claim against Bower (grandmother of Krista Archer) as the vehicle owner, along with a Jane Doe negligence count arising out of the vehicle ownership. Subsequently, due to the death of Bower, Quincy was substituted as a party defendant in place of its deceased insured pursuant to G.L.1956 § 27–7–2.⁶

A jury trial commenced on November 28, 2012. At the conclusion of plaintiff's case, Quincy moved for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. The trial justice granted the motion in favor of Quincy, determining that the owner-liability statute applied, but that Quincy, as the insurer of the vehicle owner, was exempt from liability on the basis that McKiernan had furnished proof of financial responsibility. Final judgment for Quincy was entered on November 30, 2012, and plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on December 18, 2012.⁷ The trial against McKiernan proceeded on the sole issue of damages⁸ and the jury returned a verdict awarding plaintiff $1.75 million.⁹

IIStandard of Review

“In reviewing a trial justice's decision on a motion for judgment as a matter of law, this Court is bound to follow the same rules and legal standards as govern the trial justice.” Perry v. Alessi, 890 A.2d 463, 467 (R.I.2006) (quoting Women's Development Corp. v. City of Central Falls, 764 A.2d 151, 157 (R.I.2001) ). The trial justice, and consequently this Court, must examine “the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, without weighing the evidence or evaluating the credibility of witnesses, and draw[ ] from the record all reasonable inferences that support the position of the nonmoving party.” Id. (quoting Women's Development Corp., 764 A.2d at 157 ). Ultimately, a trial justice should enter a judgment as a matter of law “when the evidence permits only one legitimate conclusion in regard to the outcome.” Long v. Atlantic PBS, Inc., 681 A.2d 249, 252 (R.I.1996).

In addition, “[t]his Court reviews questions of statutory construction and interpretation de novo. ” National Refrigeration, Inc. v. Capital Properties, Inc., 88 A.3d 1150, 1156 (R.I.2014) (quoting Morel v. Napolitano, 64 A.3d 1176, 1179 (R.I.2013) ). It is well settled that “[w]hen the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, we give the words their plain and ordinary meaning.” Id. (quoting Morel, 64 A.3d at 1179 ). This Court, however, must act as the “final arbiter of questions of statutory construction” when confronted with unclear or ambiguous statutory language. Tanner v. The Town Council of East Greenwich, 880 A.2d 784, 796 (R.I.2005) (quoting Mottola v. Cirello, 789 A.2d 421, 423 (R.I.2002) ). “[O]ur interpretation of an ambiguous statute ‘is grounded in policy considerations and we will not apply a statute in a manner that will defeat its underlying purpose.’ ” Town of Burrillville v. Pascoag Apartment Associates, LLC, 950 A.2d 435, 446 (R.I.2008) (quoting Arnold v. Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training Board of Review, 822 A.2d 164, 169 (R.I.2003) ). Further, “[w]hen construing a statute, our ultimate goal is to give effect to the purpose of the act as intended by the Legislature.” Mendes v. Factor, 41 A.3d 994, 1002 (R.I.2012) (quoting Generation Realty, LLC v. Catanzaro, 21 A.3d 253, 259 (R.I.2011) ). Therefore, “[w]e must determin[e] and effectuat [e] that legislative intent and attribut[e] to the enactment the most consistent meaning.” Id . (quoting Generation Realty, LLC, 21 A.3d at 259 ). “Finally, under no circumstances will this Court construe a statute to reach an absurd result.” Id . (quoting Generation Realty, LLC, 21 A.3d at 259 ).

IIIDiscussion

On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial justice erred in finding as a matter of law that Quincy, standing in the shoes of the vehicle owner,...