Rivera v. Cicilline
| Decision Date | 11 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2021-105-Appeal.,PC 17-4605 |
| Citation | 274 A.3d 11 (Mem) |
| Parties | Saul RIVERA, individually and on behalf of Nevaeh Matias (minor), Saul Rivera (minor), Namiya Rivera (minor), and Jordan Rivera (minor) v. John CICILLINE et al. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
The plaintiff, Saul Rivera, individually and on behalf of his four minor children (plaintiff or Mr. Rivera), appeals from an order of the Superior Court granting a motion for summary judgment by the defendants, John Cicilline, David Cicilline, and Roberta Cicilline-DiMezza1 (collectively the Cicilline defendants), and from the final judgment entered in favor of the Cicilline defendants pursuant thereto. This case came before the Supreme Court on April 5, 2022, pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. After considering the parties’ written and oral submissions and reviewing the record, we conclude that cause has not been shown and that this appeal may be decided without further briefing or argument. For the reasons set forth herein, we deny and dismiss the plaintiff's appeal.
The facts that gave rise to the complaint at the heart of this appeal are unfortunate. On September 28, 2014, Mr. Rivera and some companions visited The Vault Lounge (the Vault), a nightclub located on the first floor of 387 Atwells Avenue in the Federal Hill neighborhood of Providence. A verbal altercation arose between one of Mr. Rivera's companions and two unidentified individuals. Mr. Rivera and his companions exited through the back door of the club, where the unidentified individuals pursued and stabbed Mr. Rivera.
After surviving his near-fatal injuries, Mr. Rivera filed suit on behalf of himself and his minor children against the various defendants. Among those defendants were the Cicilline defendants. It appears from the record of the case that defendants John Cicilline and David Cicilline owned the 387 Atwells Avenue property and rented the first floor to the Vault.2 Mr. Rivera's complaint alleged twelve claims for relief against all of the named defendants: (1) negligence; (2) negligent security; (3) inadequate security; (4) premises liability; (5) negligent leasing/renting; (6) negligent hiring/supervision with respect to defendants N.E.S. Solutions LLC, Wayne Fantasia, and Daniel Ashworth; (7) negligent hiring/supervision with respect to the remaining defendants; (8) a second count alleging inadequate security; (9) loss of consortium; (10) respondeat superior; (11) vicarious liability; and (12) equitable indemnification.
Following discovery, the Cicilline defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims asserted against them, arguing that they did not owe Mr. Rivera a duty of care as commercial landlords, and that therefore his claims for relief and his children's derivative claims for relief must fail. The trial justice granted the Cicilline defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding that those three defendants owed no duty to plaintiff.
The plaintiff appealed, assigning five errors: (1) the trial justice failed to address plaintiff's cause of action for negligent leasing; (2) the trial justice erred with respect to plaintiff's negligence claim; (3) the trial justice erred by failing to address a cause of action under equity principles; (4) the trial justice erred by disposing of all of plaintiff's claims based on the trial justice's finding that the Cicilline defendants owed no duty to plaintiff; and (5) the trial justice erred by finding that the Cicilline defendants owed no duty as a matter of law without allowing questions of foreseeability to reach a jury.
Under this Court's well-established raise-or-waive rule and Article I, Rule 16(a) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure, a party seeking...
To continue reading
Request your trial