Vincent v. Musone
| Citation | 574 A.2d 1234 |
| Decision Date | 23 May 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-61-A,88-61-A |
| Parties | James VINCENT, Administrator of the Estate of Kerry Vincent v. Joseph MUSONE and Patricia Musone d/b/a National Liquor. ppeal. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island |
On April 5, 1990, this court issued an opinion in the above-entitled case, Vincent v. Musone, 572 A.2d 280 (R.I.1990), that sustained the defendants' appeal, vacated the Superior Court judgment, and remanded the case to the Superior Court for a new trial.
Shortly thereafter counsel for both plaintiff and defendants sought a clarification of the remand portion of the opinion where we expressed the belief that justice would also be served by an award of a counsel fee to defense counsel because of the undue delay of plaintiff's counsel in seeking to amend his complaint. In remanding the case to the Superior Court for a new trial, we emphasized that plaintiff shall be required "to pay the reasonable expenses incurred by the defendants in connection with the first trial, including a reasonable counsel fee." Vincent v. Musone, at 283-84. We also emphasized that payment of the fees and costs was a condition precedent to scheduling a new trial.
Counsel for plaintiff has asked if the award of fees is to be considered a sanction imposed pursuant to Rule 11 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. Her second inquiry can be answered when we respond to the inquiry posed by defendants' counsel.
In our award of counsel fees and expenses, this court was not acting pursuant to Rule 11. Rather the court was exercising its inherent power to fashion an appropriate remedy that would serve the ends of justice in this controversy. The record indicates that during trial, the trial justice had dismissed the count in which plaintiff was seeking damages pursuant to G.L.1956 (1969 Reenactment) chapter 7 of title 10, better known as the Wrongful Death Act. As a result plaintiff proceeded at trial solely on the dram-shop count. Our examination of the record indicated that the trial justice abused his discretion in granting plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to include a dram-shop claim on the first day of trial.
However, after further consideration we realized that the trial justice could have remedied the prejudice to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Champlin's Realty Associates v. Tikoian
...this Court has the "inherent power to fashion an appropriate remedy that would serve the ends of justice") (quoting Vincent v. Musone, 574 A.2d 1234, 1235 (R.I.1990)). Once the record has been completed, the trial justice should be the final arbiter on the expansion that Champlin's has prop......
-
Friedman v. Kelly & Picerne, Inc.
...and (3) a court may award attorney's fees when a party has acted in bad faith or for oppressive reasons); see also Vincent v. Musone, 574 A.2d 1234, 1235 (1990) (affirming the Court's inherent power to fashion appropriate remedies that "serve the ends of justice"). These exceptions are inap......
-
Friedman v. Kelly & Picerne, Inc., C.A. PB 05-1193
...and (3) a court may award attorney's fees when a party has acted in bad faith or for oppressive reasons); see also Vincent v. Musone, 574 A.2d 1234, 1235 (1990) (affirming the Court's inherent power to fashion appropriate remedies that "serve the ends of justice"). These exceptions are inap......
-
Friedman v. Kelly & Picerne, Inc.
...and (3) a court may award attorney's fees when a party has acted in bad faith or for oppressive reasons); see also Vincent v. Musone, 574 A.2d 1234, 1235 (1990) (affirming the Court's inherent power to fashion appropriate remedies that "serve the ends of justice"). These exceptions are inap......