Houle v. Galloway School Lines, Inc.

• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: LEDERBERG
• Citation: Houle v. Galloway School Lines, Inc., 643 A.2d 822 (R.I. 1994)
• Decision Date: 23 June 1994
• Docket Number: No. 93-338-A,93-338-A
• Parties: 92 Ed. Law Rep. 553 Robert N. HOULE v. GALLOWAY SCHOOL LINES, INC. ppeal.

Page 822

643 A.2d 822

92 Ed. Law Rep. 553

Robert N. HOULE v. GALLOWAY SCHOOL LINES, INC.

No. 93-338-Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

June 23, 1994.

Mark Decof, Donna M. DiDonato, Decof & Grimm, Providence, for plaintiff.

Dennis J. Roberts, II, Roberts, Carroll, Feldstein & Peirce, Providence, for defendant.

OPINION

LEDERBERG, Justice.

This civil action came before the Supreme Court on the appeal of Robert N. Houle (plaintiff) from a directed verdict granted by the Superior Court in favor of Galloway School Lines, Inc. (Galloway). A school bus owned and operated by Galloway pursuant to a contract with the town of North Smithfield, Rhode Island (town), was described as the proximate cause of an accident in which the plaintiff was injured. On appeal, the primary issue was whether the public-duty doctrine is applicable to a municipality's operation of school buses and to the design and operation of school-bus routes. For the reasons stated herein, we conclude that although the public-duty doctrine applies to the design of school-bus routes, the doctrine does not insulate municipalities from liability for the negligent operation of school buses. Therefore, we vacate the judgment and remand this matter for a new trial.

FACTS

On May 2, 1989, at approximately 3 p.m., Dennis J. Caron (Caron) was driving a tractor-trailer truck northward in the right-hand travel lane of Route 146 in the town of North Smithfield. As he approached the section of highway abutting the Country Squire Motel, where the speed limit was only thirty-five miles per hour because of road construction, Caron observed a school bus (bus) traveling ahead of his vehicle in the same right-hand travel lane. The bus, owned and vicariously operated by Galloway pursuant to a contract with the town, made a right-hand turn into an access lane that ran parallel to the right-hand travel lane; the two lanes were separated by a wide, so-called chatter strip. The bus's flashing yellow lights then appeared. Although Caron hesitated to stop because of fast-moving traffic, the appearance of the bus's stop sign and flashing red lights induced him to bring his truck to a complete stop. Caron--now stopped in the right-hand travel lane to the left and slightly behind the school bus--glanced into his left rearview mirror where he observed a white Pontiac approaching in the travel lane to the left.

The Pontiac, driven by Ronald Nasuti (Nasuti) and occupied by plaintiff, was en route to Woonsocket, Rhode Island. As the vehicle approached the stretch of road bordered by the Country Squire Motel, plaintiff observed, and warned Nasuti about, the bus ahead. Nasuti saw the bus's flashing red lights and stopped his car in the high-speed lane along the left side and slightly ahead of Caron's trailer truck. From this vantage point, Nasuti observed the bus to his right and--looking into his rearview mirror--saw that an approaching, white step-van driven by Vincent J. Gadoury (Gadoury) was about to collide with the rear of his Pontiac. The ensuing collision pushed Nasuti's car forward into the guardrail. The plaintiff sustained serious injuries from which he has partially recovered.

On July 2, 1989, plaintiff filed a negligence action against Galloway; the town; Marion J. Allen (Allen), the driver of the bus; Gadoury; DENCO Builders, Inc. (DENCO), Gadoury's alleged employer; and Dennis R. Gignac, the alleged registered owner of the white step-van. The plaintiff settled his claims against DENCO, Gadoury, and Gignac, and his claims against Allen and the town were dismissed. The plaintiff then proceeded to trial against the remaining party, Galloway. After plaintiff rested his case, Galloway moved for a directed verdict based, inter alia, upon the public-duty doctrine. The trial justice granted the motion, and plaintiff filed the instant appeal pursuant to G.L.1956 (1985 Reenactment) § 9-24-1.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a trial justice's decision on a motion for directed verdict, this court examines the evidence in a light most advantageous to the nonmoving party without regard to the weight of the evidence or the credibility of the witnesses. Rodrigues v. Miriam Hospital, 623 A.2d 456, 460 (R.I.1993). We draw from the evidence only those inferences that support the nonmoving party's position. Id. If such an examination discloses competent, credible evidence to support plaintiff's claim against Galloway, then the motion for a directed verdict should have been denied. See Achille v. Colonial Penn Insurance Co., 505 A.2d 1173, 1174-75 (R.I.1986).

THE PUBLIC DUTY DOCTRINE

In granting Galloway's motion, the trial justice reasoned that under the public-duty doctrine, Galloway, as the town's agent, shared derivatively the town's governmental tort immunity because the designing of school-bus routes and the transportation of students to and from school are discretionary activities to which the public-duty doctrine applies. The trial justice also found the "egregious conduct" exception to the public-duty doctrine inapplicable to plaintiff's case. On appeal, plaintiff primarily argued that the public-duty doctrine does not bar his negligence claims against Galloway because the design and operation of school-bus routes are activities engaged in by private individuals. Moreover, plaintiff maintained that the record contains sufficient evidence to bring Galloway's conduct within the egregious-conduct exception to the public-duty doctrine.

Individuals tortiously injured by an agent of the state or one of its political subsidiaries traditionally were barred from recovery by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Catone v. Medberry, 555 A.2d 328, 330 (R.I.1989). The General Assembly statutorily abolished the doctrine in 1970 with the enactment of the Governmental Tort Liability Act, G.L.1956 (1985 Reenactment) § 9-31-1 (as enacted by P.L.1970, ch. 181, § 2): "The state of Rhode Island * * * including all cities and towns, shall * * * hereby be liable in all actions of tort in the same manner as a private individual or corporation." On the other hand, the public-duty doctrine shields the state and its political subdivisions from tort liability "arising out of discretionary governmental actions that by their nature are not ordinarily performed by private persons." Haley v. Town of Lincoln, 611 A.2d 845, 849 (R.I.1992). Accord Catri v. Hopkins, 609 A.2d 966, 968 (R.I.1992); Bierman v. Shookster, 590 A.2d 402, 404 (R.I.1991); Catone, 555 A.2d at 333.

In order to prove negligence, a plaintiff first must show that the state owed him or her a legal duty, the breach of which gave rise to liability. Haley, 611 A.2d at 848. To determine the duty owed, it is necessary to examine the nature of the activity that gave rise to the plaintiff's claim. Longtin v. D'Ambra Construction Co., 588 A.2d 1044, 1045-46 (R.I.1991). "If the activity the state was engaged in was one that a private individual typically performs, the state owes the public a duty of reasonable care and will be liable for a breach of that duty to the same extent a private individual would be." Id. at 1046. Accord Haley, 611 A.2d at 848-49; Misurelli v. State, Department of Transportation, 590 A.2d 877, 878 (R.I.1991). Only after a determination that the activity at issue "could not ordinarily be performed by a private person" does the public-duty doctrine and its two exceptions--the special-duty exception and the egregious-conduct exception- --become considerations. Haley, 611 A.2d at 849. Accord Catri, 609 A.2d at 968. Under the egregious-conduct exception, even in cases in which a governmental action is discretionary, a plaintiff may recover for the state's negligence "when the state has knowledge that it has created a circumstance that forces an individual into a position of peril and subsequently chooses not to remedy the situation." Verity v. Danti, 585 A.2d 65, 67 (R.I.1991).

In the instant case, plaintiff's negligence claims against Galloway comprised three separate counts. Two of the counts were premised upon the allegation that Allen had failed to exercise due care in operating the bus, and the third count alleged that Galloway had negligently designed the bus route that Allen had been...