McAuley v. Dias
| Decision Date | 30 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | PC-2016-4038 |
| Court | Rhode Island Superior Court |
| Parties | TIMOTHY McAULEY v. JOHN DIAS, III; PROVIDENCE WATER SUPPLY BOARD; PROVIDENCE WATER COMPANY; and JAMES LOMBARDI, in his capacity as Treasurer of the CITY OF PROVIDENCE v. W. WALSH COMPANY, INC.; and PARKSIDE SITE & UTILITY COMPANY CORPORATION, as Third-Party Defendants |
Providence County Superior Court
For Plaintiff: Mark S. Mandell, Esq.; John D. Meara, Esq.
For Defendant: Stephanie F. Friedel, Esq.; Andrew Lentz, Esq. Patrick J. McBurney, Esq.; Danial Calabro, Jr., Esq.; Matthew C. Reeber, Esq.
For Third Party Defendant: Shannon Gilheeney, Esq.
DECISION
Before this Court for decision are motions for summary judgment from the City of Providence, Providence Water Supply Board Parkside Site & Utility Company Corporation, and W. Walsh Company, Inc. (collectively, Movants). This Court heard the parties' arguments regarding these motions on November 9, 2020. Jurisdiction is pursuant to Rule 56 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff Timothy McAuley (McAuley) is a United States Postal Service letter carrier who alleges that he fell and sustained injuries on Defendant John Dias III's (Dias) property at 230-232 Summit Avenue in Providence on August 28, 2013. (McAuley Dep. 5:4-18; 8:18-21; 22:19-22; 23:23-24:3; 38:9-39:5.) McAuley alleges that he fell because rubber mats that normally were flush with the property's steps instead were moved forward so that the mats were unsupported and thus unsafe to step on. Id. at 12:9-19.
Dias purchased the mats on March 22, 2011 and installed them shortly thereafter. (Dias Dep. 66:8-68:17; Pl.'s Mem. Ex. 12 (Ex. 12).) Prior to installing the mats, Dias used quick-setting cement patch to repair cracks in the landing on which he placed the mats. Id. Dias testified in his deposition that the mats were flush against the steps when he installed them and that moving the mats would create an overlap where the mats would not be supported by the cement landing in front of the steps. Id. Dias also testified that he would never leave the mats in a state that would be unsupported by the landing because doing so would create "an unsafe condition[.]" (Dias Dep. 57:13-23; 64:20-65:5; 73:3-9.)
Both Dias and McAuley claim that Defendant City of Providence (City), through Defendant Providence Water Supply Board (PWSB), [1] contracted with third-party Defendants Parkside Site & Utility Company Corporation (Parkside) as contractor and W. Walsh Company, Inc. (Walsh) as subcontractor to repair the water mains. . Further, both claim that Walsh moved the mats on Dias's property to place a temporary, small blue pipe along the landing. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 16-17; Dias Am. Answer Crossclaim. Dias described the placement of the blue pipe as across the bottom step and then into the basement. (Dias Dep. 48:1-5.) Walsh denies that its employees moved the mats. (Walsh Aff. ¶ 7.) The project's work log reflects that on August 7, 2013, Walsh connected temporary piping on Summit Avenue near 9th Street, which is within the vicinity of Dias's property. See Pl.'s Mem. Ex. 3; Pl.'s Mem. Ex. 9.
Dias testified that he lacks personal knowledge as to when the mats were moved to create a fall hazard on his property, nor did he know who employed the workers. (Dias Dep. 47:7-9; 74:19-22.) Prior to McAuley's fall, Dias did, however, see workers on Summit Avenue, when the blue pipe appeared on his property. Id. at 47:2-6; 47:15-20. While Dias testified that he did not know who moved the mats, if he had seen that the mats were in an unsafe condition, he would have put them back flush to the property's steps. Id. at 49:12-21. Dias testified that, based on his common-sense and experience as a landlord, he concluded that whoever installed the pipe also moved the mats and created the hazard that was the cause of McAuley's injury. Id. at 91:6-92:1.
McAuley described the weather on the day he fell as being sunny and without rain; the day was warm enough that McAuley wore shorts while delivering the mail, in addition to above-the-ankle boots that his employer issued to him. (McAuley Dep. 13:24-14:5; 19:4-9; 39:6-14.) McAuley delivered mail to Dias's property approximately once a week starting sometime between 2010 to 2012, usually on Wednesdays around 10 to 11 a.m. Id. at 42:18-43:14. McAuley would walk up the steps to deliver the mail on the left side because his left hand would be free to use the handrail and likewise go down the steps via the same side, i.e., what was on the left going up would be on the right going down. Id. at 11:3-13.
McAuley claims that when he fell, he did not slip or lose his balance when going up the steps, nor did he skip a step. Id. at 13:5-10; 14:16-18. After he walked up the steps and delivered the mail, McAuley turned around and walked down while holding the handrail. Id. at 14:6-15. As McAuley walked down the steps, his right foot stepped onto a four to six-inch overhang by the mats that was unsupported by the cement landing, causing him to fall onto the ground on his right side and then tumble onto the sidewalk. Id. at 14:22-16:8; 45:9-13. McAuley lay on the ground for some time before getting up on his own and did not notice the blue pipe until after he fell. Id. at 16:9-21; 40:5-41:4.
McAuley stated that he drove back to his post office and informed his supervisor and manager. Id. at 17:14-18:21. The supervisor and manager took pictures of McAuley's injuries and then went with him back to Dias's property to take pictures of where he fell. Id. at 18:22-20:12. McAuley's supervisor and manager then took him to receive medical attention. Id. Doctors diagnosed McAuley with a torn anterior cruciate ligament in his right knee, and McAuley also suffered other injuries to his right knee and lower back. Id. at 22:16-22; 38:18-22.
McAuley stated that he lacked any personal knowledge as to who moved the mats or when, and he did not notice any construction at the time of his fall. Id. at 11:18-23; 48:7-49:14. McAuley also did not notice anything unusual about the mats until after he fell. Id. at 12:2-24. McAuley did not speak to either Dias's tenants or Dias himself. Id. at 38:3-14.
McAuley filed this action on August 26, 2016. On March 1, 2018, Dias filed a Third-Party Complaint against Walsh and Parkside. On July 23, 2020, Parkside, PWSB, and the City moved for summary judgment. Walsh also moved for summary judgment on August 7, 2020. Both Dias and McAuley objected to the motions for summary judgment on August 21 and 24, 2020, respectively. This Court heard both motions for summary judgment on November 9, 2020.
Under Rule 56(c) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment shall issue when the evidence "show[s] that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as matter of law." The Rhode Island Supreme Court "frowns upon the disposition of negligence claims by summary judgment" because "complaints sounding in negligence generally are not amenable to summary judgment and should be resolved by fact finding[.]" Dent v. PRRC, Inc., 184 A.3d 649, 653-54 (R.I. 2018) (brackets and quotations omitted). The Rhode Island Supreme Court has also stated that "summary judgment is a drastic remedy, and a motion for summary judgment should be dealt with cautiously." Id. at 653 (brackets and quotations omitted).
Under Rhode Island negligence law, "a plaintiff must establish a legally cognizable duty owed by a defendant to a plaintiff a breach of that duty, proximate causation between the conduct and the resulting injury, and the actual loss or damage." Voccola v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co LLC, 209 A.3d 558, 560 (R.I. 2019) (quotations omitted). "Of the four well-worn elements of negligence, only duty is a question of law." Aubin v. MAG Realty, LLC, 161 A.3d 1143, 1146 (R.I. 2017) (quotations omitted). "The remaining three elements of a negligence claim . . . are fact-based and [this Court] may treat the issue of negligence as a matter of law only if the facts suggest only one reasonable inference." Id. (brackets and quotations omitted). "Specifically, with respect to a [trip]-and-fall claim, a plaintiff must present evidence of an unsafe condition on the premises of which the defendant was aware or should have been aware, and that the condition existed for a long enough time so the owner of the premises should have taken steps to correct the condition." Voccola, 209 A.3d at 560-61 (quotations omitted). Thus, a plaintiff "must present evidence that his or her fall was the result of an unseen danger." Yanku v. Walgreen Co., 224 A.3d 1130, 1134 (R.I. 2020) (brackets and quotations omitted).
The duty element of negligence is a question of law for this Court to resolve. See Aubin, 161 A.3d at 1146. McAuley alleges that the Movants owed him a duty because the Movants were responsible under Article XI, § 1101(a)(1) (§ 1101(a)(1)) of the Providence City Charter to supervise, manage, and control water supply. See Pl.'s Mem. 3 n.1. McAuley quotes Konar v. PFL Life Insurance Co., 840 A.2d 1115 (R.I. 2004) in support of this argument. Id. "For example, a party may be vicariously liable for the negligent acts of its independent contractor if the party retained an independent contractor to carry out a duty to the public that is set out in a statute or ordinance." Konar, 840 A.2d at 1117. McAuley also analyzes this action through the five-part test established in Banks v. Bowen's Landing Corp. 522 A.2d 1222 (R.I. 1987). McAuley argues that...
To continue reading
Request your trial