Skaling v. Aetna Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 16 December 1999
• Docket Number: No. 98-282-Appeal, 98-335-Appeal.,98-282-Appeal, 98-335-Appeal.
• Citation: 742 A.2d 282
• Parties: Robert SKALING et al. v. AETNA INSURANCE CO. et al.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

742 A.2d 282

Robert SKALING et al. v. AETNA INSURANCE CO. et al.

No. 98-282-Appeal, 98-335-Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

December 16, 1999.

Present WEISBERGER, C.J., LEDERBERG, BOURCIER, FLANDERS, and GOLDBERG, JJ.

Kelly M. Fracassa, Nicholas Gorham, North Scituate, for plaintiff.

Thomas R. Bender, William M. Dolan, David P. Whitman, Providence, for defendant.

OPINION

LEDERBERG, Justice.

This case came before the Supreme Court on consolidated appeals from a judgment entered in Superior Court in the amount of $300,000 in favor of Robert Skaling (Skaling). The amount represented the policy limit of Skaling's uninsured motorist policy with Aetna Insurance Company (Aetna). Skaling appealed the judgment, arguing that interest should have been added in accordance with G.L. 1956 § 9-21-10 and G.L. 1956 § 27-7-2.2, and that such interest should be calculated on the entire $1,174,500 awarded by the jury. Aetna also appealed on three grounds; namely, there was insufficient evidence that the use of a vehicle led to Skaling's injuries, the trial justice committed reversible error when he permitted Skaling to present evidence at trial of two commendations that he had received from community groups, and the trial justice erroneously gave a sudden emergency instruction to the jury. For the reasons we shall discuss below, Aetna's appeal is denied, and Skaling's appeal is denied in part and sustained in part.

Facts and Procedural History

At approximately 8:30 on the dark, rainy, and windy night of October 20, 1995, Shaun Menard (Menard) and Marty Webber (Webber) went for a ride in Menard's Jeep. They drove to a hiking trail in western Coventry, Rhode Island, near the Connecticut border to go "four wheeling" on the trail, although state regulations prohibit motorized vehicles on hiking trails.

After driving on the trail a short distance, Menard and Webber came to an abandoned wooden railroad trestle bridge that crossed sixty to seventy feet above the Moosup River. A six-foot-high chain link fence ran along each side of the bridge. Although large boulders had been placed at both ends of the bridge to prevent vehicles from gaining access, Menard drove his Jeep through the woods, around the boulders, and onto the trestle. When he arrived at the other end of the bridge, the vehicle became stuck.

There was conflicting evidence on whether the vehicle's front driver's side fender or front passenger's side fender was "jammed" especially close to the edge of the bridge. Certain facts about the Jeep are undisputed, however. The Jeep was approximately seventy inches wide, the bridge was eighty-six inches wide, and the Jeep was stopped at an angle, with its lights turned off. The chain link fence near the front driver's side of the Jeep was on the ground underneath the Jeep; the Jeep could move neither forward nor backward.

When the Jeep became stuck, Menard and Webber exited the vehicle, climbed down the bank of the river, and spent some time drinking beer and "partying" on the shores of the Moosup. After each had drunk about six beers, the pair climbed back up the bank and walked onto the bridge. Webber tried to walk past the driver's side of the Jeep but fell off the bridge when he came to the place where asection of fence had been torn down. After Menard realized that Webber had fallen, he left to find help.

Robert and Deborah Skaling lived on Lewis Farm Road, at the intersection with the trail and only several hundred feet from the trestle. Skaling was at home with his wife and children, and estimated that between 9:15 and 11:30 that night he had four or five beers, as well as a nightcap. At approximately 11:45, Menard arrived at Skaling's door, told Mrs. Skaling that his friend had fallen off the bridge, asked her to call 911, and immediately ran back to Webber. Skaling put on his boots and a sweatshirt, grabbed a blanket, and drove his truck to the edge of the bridge. He left his truck lights on and began walking across the bridge, calling out in an effort to find Webber or Menard. As he attempted to pass the Jeep, he found himself "edging along * * * with [his] belly up to the vehicle as close as you can possibly get to something." As he reached the driver's door in the area where the fence was down, he fell off the bridge. As Skaling fell, he struck the granite stones that provided support for the bridge and then continued to fall to the ground below. Skaling was severely injured in the fall and was hospitalized for two months.

In January 1996, Skaling made a claim against Menard, alleging that Menard's negligence caused his injuries. Menard's automobile liability insurer paid Skaling its policy limit of $25,000 in settlement of that claim. Skaling also sought compensation from Aetna, pursuant to the uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) provisions of his own automobile insurance policy. Aetna asserted that Skaling's injuries were not a covered claim because they did not arise from Menard's ownership, maintenance, or use of his Jeep, and Aetna refused Skaling's offer to arbitrate the issue.

Skaling then filed a complaint in Superior Court seeking a declaration that he was entitled to compensation from Aetna under the UM provision of his insurance policy,¹ and also seeking damages for Aetna's alleged breach of his insurance contract.² At the close of evidence, Aetna filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, pursuant to Rule 50(a) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure, on the ground that there was insufficient evidence that the position of the Jeep was the proximate cause of Skaling's injuries. A jury returned a verdict, finding that Skaling's injuries were proximately caused by Menard's negligence, and awarded Skaling, his wife, and two children $1,174,500 in damages. The jury reduced its original damage award of $1,305,000 by 10 percent, based on its determination that Skaling's own negligence was a contributing proximate cause of his injuries. After the jury returned its verdict, the trial justice denied Aetna's Rule 50(a) motion.

After the verdict was returned, Skaling's motion for the addition of prejudgment interest pursuant to § 9-21-10 and § 27-7-2.2 was denied, and on March 30, 1998, judgment was entered for Skaling in the amount of $300,000, the liability limit on Aetna's UM policy. After the entry of judgment, Aetna filed a motion for a new trial, pursuant to Rule 59(a) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure, on the grounds that the trial justice committed prejudicial error in permitting the admission into evidence of two commendations for heroism that Skaling received and in charging the jury with a "sudden emergency" instruction. This motion was also denied. Each party appealed, claiming error in the denial of their respective motions.³

Additional facts will be added as required in the legal analysis of the issues raised.

Proximate Cause

Before evaluating the trial justice's denial of Aetna's motion for judgment as a matter of law, we must consider Skaling's assertion that this issue has not been properly preserved for appellate review. Skaling has argued that under Rule 50(b), a motion for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of evidence must be renewed within ten days of the entry of judgment in order for the issue to be preserved for appeal. Rule 50(b) provides that when a motion for judgment as a matter of law is made at the close of all evidence and is denied, "[s]uch a motion may be renewed by service and filing not later than 10 days after entry of judgment." The corresponding federal rule has long been interpreted to require renewal of the motion after judgment is entered in order to preserve an issue for appeal. Cone v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co., 330 U.S. 212, 218, 67 S.Ct. 752, 756, 91 L.Ed. 849, 853-54 (1947). After careful consideration, we have concluded that we shall not apply this interpretation to the Rhode Island rule. Instead, we hold that if a motion for judgment as a matter of law was made at the close of all evidence, the motion is sufficiently preserved for review by this Court. This holding in no way modifies our established rule that if one party makes a motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of the opponent's case and then presents evidence on his or her own behalf, the motion must be renewed at the close of all evidence. If the motion was not so renewed, the earlier motion is deemed waived and may not be reviewed. Hamrick v. Yellow Cab Co., 111 R.I. 515, 522, 304 A.2d 666, 671 (1973).

The standard for granting a motion for judgment as a matter of law is well settled. Mellor v. O'Connor, 712 A.2d 375, 377 (R.I.1998); Dawson v. Rhode Island Auditorium, Inc., 104 R.I. 116, interest had been properly denied by the trial justice.121, 242 A.2d 407, 411 (1968). When considering such a motion, the trial justice must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, without weighing the evidence or evaluating the credibility of the witnesses, and draw from the record all reasonable inferences that support the position of the nonmoving party. Mellor, 712 A.2d at 377. If, after such a review, there remain factual issues upon which reasonable persons might draw different conclusions, the motion for judgment as a matter of law must be denied. Id. When this Court reviews a trial justice's decision on such a motion, we apply the same analysis. Id.

Although Aetna did not dispute the jury's finding that Menard was negligent in his use of his automobile, it contended that there was insufficient evidence that such negligence was the proximate cause of Skaling's injuries. Because Skaling was not able to describe exactly how he fell from the bridge, Aetna argued that the jury could not conclude that the fall was caused by the Jeep. Aetna further asserted that the evidence indicated that Skaling could have fallen even if the Jeep were not on the bridge. We disagree with Aetna's analysis of proximate cause...