Legare v. Urso
| Decision Date | 24 January 1966 |
| Citation | 216 A.2d 506,100 R.I. 391 |
| Parties | Edith M. LEGARE v. Frank URSO. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Louis B. Cappuccio, Westerly, for plaintiff.
Gunning & LaFazia, Edward L. Gnys, Jr., Providence, for defendant.
In this action of trespass on the case for negligence to recover damages for personal injuries the defendant's special plea that he had been released from liability was answered in the plaintiff's second amended replication. She alleged in that pleading that the release was invalid because procured by fraud and for the further reason that at the time of its execution both she and the defendant were mutually mistaken as to the nature and extent of her injuries. The case is here on the plaintiff's exception to a ruling of a justice of the superior court sustaining a demurrer to that replication.
The question is whether the invalidating effect of fraud or mutual mistake upon a release may be pleaded in an action at law for negligence. The answer must be found, the parties agree, either in the common-law rules of pleading which prevailed in the superior court prior to January 10, 1966, on which date its new Rules of Civil Procedure became effective, or in G.L.1956, § 9-6-15, which, prior to its amendment by P.L.1965, chap. 55, sec. 16, permitted the pleading in that court of an equitable defense upon which an unconditional judgment might be rendered for the pleader.
The adoption of the new Rules of Civil Procedure makes it unnecessary for us to enter the controversy. It is provided in Rule 86 that the rules govern in all further proceedings in pending actions save for two specified exceptions neither of which is applicable here. In the circumstances, an affirmance of the ruling sustaining the demurrer would after its remand to the superior court leave the case in a status where that court could within its discretion permit plaintiff to amend her replication. Hebert v. Handy, 28 R.I. 317, 67 A. 325; Bennett v. Connery & Co., 48 R.I. 350, 138 A. 50.
If such amendment were permitted, and it is difficult to conceive what ground within the allowable area of sound judicial discretion could be relied on for a denial of such permission, plaintiff would then under Rule 8(e)(2) be allowed to restate her defenses of fraud and mutual mistake 'regardless of consistency and whether based on legal or equitable grounds or on both.' Such a result would lend assistance to the accomplishment of that procedural union between law and equity which the rules are designed to achieve. See reporter's note to Rule 2.
Notwithstanding plaintiff's claim of a trial by jury,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Twomey v. Carlton House of Providence, Inc.
...227 A.2d 589, 591-592 (1967); Bragg v. Warwick Shoppers World, Inc., 102 R.I. 8, 10, 227 A.2d 582, 583-584 (1967); Legare v. Urso, 100 R.I. 391, 216 A.2d 506 (1966).11 H. J. Bernard Realty Co. v. Director of Employment Security, 104 R.I. 651, 654, 248 A.2d 245, 246 ...
-
King v. Brown, 11
...date. Bragg v. Warwick Shoppers World, R.I., 227 A.2d 582 (filed March 20, 1967); Milliken v. Milliken, R.I., 225 A.2d 661; Legare v. Urso, R.I., 216 A.2d 506. The procedure we here adopt should not be deemed as implying that we will in other situations order reargument on the prospective e......
-
Bragg v. Warwick Shoppers World, Inc.
...situations where our review has been of rulings made prior to their effective date. Milliken v. Milliken, R.I., 225 A.2d 661; Legare v. Urso, R.I., 216 A.2d 506. We follow that policy in this case and we consider the declaration as if it were a complaint. Stripped of its common-law formalis......
-
Milliken v. Milliken
...to treat the cause as an appeal under the aforecited statute and therefore dismiss the bill of exceptions pro forma. See Legare v. Urso, R.I., 216 A.2d 506. The petitioner who is twenty-six years of age testified that he met respondent in 1962, saw her as well as other girls off and on unti......