Roy v. State, C.A. No. PC-09-2874
| Court | Superior Court of Rhode Island |
| Writing for the Court | MCGUIRL |
| Parties | BRETT A. ROY and DAWN K. ROY Each Individually, and as Natural Parents, Next Friends and Guardians of Minors JALYN ROY and BRETT A. ROY, JR. Plaintiffs v. STATE OF RHODE ISLAND; THE RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; W. MICHAEL SULLIVAN, In His Capacity as Director of the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management; and KENNETH HENDERSON, as an Employee, Agent or Servant of the State of Rhode Island DEM Defendants |
| Docket Number | C.A. No. PC-09-2874 |
| Decision Date | 26 March 2013 |
BRETT A. ROY and DAWN K. ROY Each Individually, and as Natural Parents, Next Friends
and Guardians of Minors JALYN ROY and BRETT A. ROY, JR. Plaintiffs
v.
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND; THE RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; W. MICHAEL SULLIVAN,
In His Capacity as Director of the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management;
and KENNETH HENDERSON, as an Employee,
Agent or Servant of the State of Rhode Island DEM Defendants
C.A. No. PC-09-2874
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, SC. SUPERIOR COURT
Filed: March 26, 2013
MCGUIRL, J. Before this Court are the post-trial motions of Brett Roy ("Plaintiff" or "Mr. Roy") and the State of Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management ("Defendant" or "D.E.M." or "Department"). Plaintiff asserted a premises liability claim against Defendant under the Rhode Island Recreational Use Statute, G.L. 1956 § 32-6-1, et seq. Following a jury trial, a verdict was returned in favor of Defendant, and Plaintiff renewed his Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and moved for a new trial. Defendant also renewed its Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. Jurisdiction is pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 8-2-14, and R.I. Super. R. Civ. P. 50 and 59.
Page 2
The setting for the tragic story in this case is the World War II Memorial State Park (the "Park"), located in the City of Woonsocket (the "City"). The Defendant is responsible for operating the nearly sixteen acre park. (Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Renewed Mot. for J. as a Matter of Law 3.) The Park contains a four acre man-made pond (the "pond") that has long provided local residents with free access to a beach front area, where they can enjoy swimming, walking, picnics, concerts and other recreational activities. Id. at 2; Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Summary J. 2-3. The "pond" is a unique combination of both naturally-occurring and man-made physical features.1 It is designed like a basin, with a sandy bottom that slopes gradually downward from the surrounding walls and beach and becomes deeper in the middle. (Pl.'s Mem. in Supp. of Renewed Mot. 10.)
The "pond" is divided into roughly three areas: (1) a beach area; (2) an area for swimming laps—the so called "Olympic Pool"; and (3) the rest of the "pond," which is essentially a water basin. The beach area of the "pond" is located at the end of a walkway that leads to the parking lot. It consists of a sandy beach that slopes gently down into shallow water. The beach area was the primary area for swimming and bathing. (Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Renewed Mot. 4.) At the outer boundary of the shallow water, a rope with several buoys attached marked the end of the designated lifeguard-supervised swimming and bathing area.
In front of the parking lot, and roughly ninety degrees to the right of the beach area, is the "Olympic Pool," the area of the "pond" that was used for lap swimming. Concrete bulkheads
Page 3
border the "Olympic Pool" on two sides. Several buoy ropes strung in between the two bulkheads divided the "Olympic Pool" into lanes. Id. Although the exact depth of the water in the "Olympic Pool" generally is uncertain, and at the time of the incident was uncertain, it is somewhat deeper than the water in the beach area, but no greater than five or six feet.
Beyond the boundary ropes that enclosed the beach area and the "Olympic Pool" lies the rest of the "pond." This area is essentially a water basin. Up until approximately 1996, there was a "diving platform"—consisting of a concrete structure with a springboard attached— located near the middle of the "pond," outside the two swimming areas. (Lambert Dep., Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Summary J., Ex. A 28-29.) Sometime around 1996, the springboard was removed but the concrete "diving platform" remained in place. Id. Also located outside the two swimming areas is a concrete fountain that sprayed water skyward. The deepest part of the "pond" is located somewhere in the middle, but the exact depths are uncertain.
Restrooms, changing areas, and shower facilities are located adjacent to the "Olympic Pool"—roughly in between the "pond" and the parking lot. In front of these facilities, a concrete terrace with a railing juts out over the water. A stone wall with an asphalt pathway on top of it encircles part of the "pond's" perimeter.
To open the "pond" each year, the D.E.M. filled the "pond" with water from nearby Mill River and treated the water with chlorine, a process that usually took up to two weeks. (Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Summary J. 3.) In years prior to 2008, the Defendant traditionally opened the "pond" for public use on or around Memorial Day and closed the "pond" at the end of the summer season, on or around Labor Day. (Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Renewed Mot. 4.) The Defendant would typically hire lifeguards and park rangers each season, and would have such staff in place prior to opening the "pond" to the public. (Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for
Page 4
Summary J. 3.) The lifeguards and staff would place buoy ropes in the "pond" to indicate areas where swimming was permitted. Id. at 4. Swimming was usually permitted in only two locations: the beach area and the "Olympic Pool." (Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Renewed Mot. 4.) In 2008, however, the Defendant did not begin the process of opening the "pond" until unusually late in the season. Due to budget cuts, the D.E.M. had initially intended not to open the "pond" at all that year. Id. at 15. But after a hot and humid start to the summer, the Defendant—under public pressure and after receiving a specific legislative grant—ultimately decided to open the "pond" for the 2008 season. Id. On June 27, 2008, prior to hiring lifeguards, the State held a press conference to announce that it was opening the "pond." A local newspaper also covered the "pond's" opening. On or around June 27, 2008, the State immediately began the process of filling the "pond" and members of the public began to come to the "pond" to swim. (Sullivan Dep., Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Summary J., Ex. B 86-89.)
Thirteen days later, on July 10, 2008, Mr. Roy and his neighbor Hope Brayboy ("Ms. Brayboy") decided to take their children to the Park. (Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Renewed Mot. 7.) On that fateful day, the restroom, changing areas and shower facilities were open; approximately thirty members of the public were swimming in and diving into the "pond"; and at least one D.E.M. employee, Kenneth Henderson, was on site; but there were no lifeguards present. (Pl.'s Mem. in Supp. of Obj. 5; Pl.'s Mem. in Supp. of Renewed Mot. 13; Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Renewed Mot. 13.) Nor were there any lifeguard chairs set up in the vicinity of the "pond." (Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Renewed Mot. 13.) Several "No Swimming" and "No Lifeguard on Duty" signs are posted around the "pond" nearly all year round and were in place on that day. (Def.'s Mem. in Opp'n 5; Lambert Dep., Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for
Page 5
Summary J., Ex. A 23, 90-91.) There were no signs warning of shallow water or prohibiting diving. (Pl.'s Mem. in Supp. of Renewed Mot. 8.)
Mr. Roy and Ms. Brayboy arrived at the Park sometime between 11:00 and 11:30 a.m. Ms. Brayboy got the children out of the vehicle and took them down to the beach area, while Mr. Roy had a cigarette. (Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Renewed Mot. 7.) Mr. Roy walked from the parking lot to the edge of the "pond," looked at the water, and finished smoking his cigarette. Id. He then returned to the parking lot to place his wallet and other belongings in the vehicle. Id. Mr. Roy jogged back towards the "pond" and dove into the water. Id. Tragically, Plaintiff struck his head on the bottom of the "pond," resulting in his paralysis from the neck down.
Following discovery and pre-trial briefing, the long trial in this case commenced on May 9, 2011, and lasted more than four weeks. During that time, the jury heard testimony from the Plaintiff, fact witnesses, and an expert witness. The parties also presented numerous exhibits, including photographs and video, for the jury to consider. Prior to hearing the witness' testimony, the jury took a view of the "pond." The evidence developed during trial is extensive and will not be exhaustively repeated here. Accordingly, the facts most relevant to the parties' instant motions follow.
The jury heard testimony from seventeen witnesses. In addition to his own testimony, the Plaintiff presented seven employees from the D.E.M., one employee of the Woonsocket Fire Department, two people who were present at the "pond" on the day of the incident, an engineer, and an expert on liability. The Plaintiff's wife and several expert witnesses testified on injuries
Page 6
and damages. The Defendant presented two witnesses to testify about the relationship between the Plaintiff and his wife as it pertained to the Plaintiff's loss of consortium claim.
The Plaintiff, Mr. Roy, testified about his conduct on the day of the incident and his experience swimming at the "pond" in past years.2 According to Mr. Roy, on July 10, he hit his head on a "mound of sand" or a "sand bar" when he executed his dive. (Pl.'s Mem. in Supp. of Renewed Mot. for J. as a Matter of Law 11.) He...
To continue reading
Request your trial