Russian v. Life-Cap Tire Services, Inc., LIFE-CAP
| Citation | 608 A.2d 1145 |
| Decision Date | 18 May 1992 |
| Docket Number | LIFE-CAP,No. 90-404-A,90-404-A |
| Parties | Haskell RUSSIAN v.TIRE SERVICES, INC., et al. ppeal. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island |
This matter is before the court on the plaintiff's appeal from a Superior Court order granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The facts and travel of the case are as follows.
On July 25, 1986, plaintiff, Haskell Russian, fell on the premises of defendant Life-Cap Tire Services, Inc. (Life-Cap), a Rhode Island corporation in the business of selling and installing automobile and truck tires. On the day of the injury plaintiff drove to Life-Cap to replace the rear tires on his truck. He purchased two tires from the sales attendant and parked his truck in the outdoor service area located in the parking lot adjacent to the main shop. Life-Cap regularly used this area for business overflow and to service large vehicles.
The plaintiff remained in the service area while two Life-Cap employees, David Cardoza (Cardoza) and John Kimbrough (Kimbrough), worked on his truck. The two men jacked up the truck, using long-handled jacks, and removed the tires. Cardoza then took one of the tires into the building for further work while Kimbrough continued servicing the vehicle. After Cardoza left, plaintiff began walking around the truck and fell. Kimbrough did not witness the fall but discovered plaintiff lying face down on the ground near the front of the truck. Kimbrough immediately notified Cardoza and Life-Cap's owner about the accident. A third employee, Lou Harry, called the rescue squad, and plaintiff was taken to the hospital. As a result of injuries sustained in the fall, plaintiff is a quadriplegic.
On October 24, 1986, plaintiff commenced an action in tort in Providence Superior Court against Life-Cap and Narragansett Electric Co. (Narragansett Electric), the lessor of the premises. The complaint alleged that Life-Cap was under a duty of care to plaintiff to maintain its business premises in a safe condition or under a duty to warn plaintiff of the unsafe condition. The complaint further alleged that Life-Cap's breach of this duty caused plaintiff's injury. The complaint's second count alleged that Narragansett Electric, as lessor of the premises, knew or should have known of the unsafe condition and that Narragansett Electric's breach of this duty caused plaintiff's injury.
Discovery was delayed because of plaintiff's medical condition, and defendants were unable to take plaintiff's deposition until October 19, 1987. At the deposition plaintiff testified that he did not know precisely what caused him to fall but that he felt something strike him in the shins immediately prior to falling. He further testified that he saw no tools or debris in the immediate work area where he fell and that he did not remember seeing a jack or protruding jack handle along the right side of the truck.
On January 8, 1990, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that plaintiff failed to show defendants' action as the proximate cause of his injury. A hearing on the motion was held on March 6, 1990, during which the trial justice expressed concern over plaintiff's failure to show proximate cause. The trial justice offered plaintiff an additional week to present proof that defendants' negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury. The plaintiff declined and instead relied on his statement that he "felt something hit him in the shins" as sufficient evidence creating an inference that defendants' negligence was the proximate cause of the injury. The trial justice thereafter granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff appeals.
On appeal plaintiff asserts that defendants' motion for summary judgment should have been denied because there exist genuine issues of material fact to be properly resolved by a jury. The plaintiff claims that plaintiff's deposition testimony creates a reasonable inference that plaintiff had tripped over negligently placed tools left in an unrestricted work area. The defendants respond that the trial justice correctly granted the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zell v. Ricci
...to the standard of mere plausibility—a necessary prerequisite to a negligence claim: causation. See Russian v. Life–Cap Tire Servs., Inc., 608 A.2d 1145, 1147 (R.I. 1992).Here, twelve of the seventeen allegations devoted to this claim detail various duties that Defendants allegedly owed Pla......
-
Hall v. Eklof Marine Corp.
...has an affirmative duty to set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue of fact to be resolved at trial." Russian v. Life-Cap Tire Services, 608 A.2d 1145, 1147 (R.I.1992). The United States Supreme Court has observed that Rule 56(c) mandates an entry of summary judgment against a party......
-
Forcier v. Cardello
...that duty was breached, but also that the defendant's negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury. Russian v. Life-Cap Tire Services, Inc., 608 A.2d 1145 (R.I.1992). If plaintiffs cannot prove that Cardello's accounting services were indeed the proximate cause of their loss, th......
-
Wallace v. U.S.
...of proximate cause may be drawn,' then summary judgment becomes proper." Splendorio, 682 A.2d at 467 (quoting Russian v. Life-Cap Tire Servs., Inc., 608 A.2d 1145, 1147 (R.I.1992)). "[P]roximate cause is established by showing that but for the negligence of the tortfeasor, injury to the pla......