Moseley v. Fitzgerald

773 A.2d 254 (R.I. 2001) · Supreme Court of Rhode Island · June 19, 2001 · No. No. 99-544-Appeal

Summary

The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviews summary judgments arising from a plaintiff's injury after falling over a utility-pole guy wire near a school and playground. The court affirms summary judgment for the City of East Providence because the plaintiffs failed to provide the statutory notice required by Rhode Island General Laws § 45-15-9. It vacates summary judgment for New England Telephone and Telegraph Company, holding that the company's joint ownership and control of the utility pole could support a duty to address or warn about the dangerous condition.

Court
Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam; Chief Justice Williams; Justice Lederberg; Justice Bourcier; Justice Flanders; Justice Goldberg
Jurisdiction
Rhode Island
Decision date
June 19, 2001
Docket number
No. 99-544-Appeal
Procedural posture
Plaintiffs appealed summary judgments entered in favor of the City of East Providence and New England Telephone and Telegraph Company in consolidated negligence actions arising from a fall caused by an allegedly dangerous guy wire.
Standard of review
Summary judgment is reviewed de novo under the same rules and standards applied by the trial justice. The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and summary judgment is affirmed when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Precedential value
Published Rhode Island Supreme Court opinion; precedential
Parties
Melissa M. Moseley, Robert F. Moseley, Mary Jane Moseley v. City of East Providence, New England Telephone and Telegraph Company
Disposition
other

Topics

premises liabilitymunicipal liabilitysummary judgmentstandard of reviewnegligence

Practice areas

TortsMunicipal lawCivil procedureAppellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Verizon owed plaintiffs a duty of care because it jointly owned and controlled the utility pole to which the allegedly dangerous guy wire was attached.
  2. Whether plaintiffs' failure to provide the City with statutory notice within sixty days barred their sidewalk-injury claim under Rhode Island General Laws § 45-15-9.
  3. Whether the Superior Court properly entered summary judgment for the City and Verizon.

Holdings

  1. Verizon's joint ownership and control of the utility pole imposed a duty equal to Narragansett Electric's duty to ensure that the pole and attached guy wire were safe and free from dangerous conditions, and to correct or warn of such a condition.
  2. Plaintiffs' failure to provide notice of the time, place, and cause of their sidewalk injury within sixty days, as required by G.L. 1956 § 45-15-9, was fatal to their claim against the City.

Key quotations

With dual ownership and control comes dual responsibility. (258)
In the instant case, plaintiffs' failure to satisfy the statutory condition precedent of serving notice of the injury upon the city is fatal to their claim. (259)

Factual background

On December 8, 1995, Melissa Moseley suffered a serious head injury when she allegedly fell after encountering an unprotected guy wire supporting a utility pole near a sidewalk, elementary school, and public playground in East Providence. The utility pole was jointly owned by Verizon and Narragansett Electric, while the evidence showed that Verizon exercised joint control over the pole and commonly notified Narragansett Electric of guy-wire problems. Plaintiffs alleged that the City and the utility companies negligently created, maintained, or failed to warn of the dangerous condition.

Procedural history

Plaintiffs filed separate actions against the City, Verizon, and Narragansett Electric, which were consolidated in the Superior Court. The Superior Court entered Rule 54(b) summary judgment for the City after determining from the pleadings that no duty was shown, and later entered summary judgment for Verizon on the ground that Verizon did not own or maintain the guy wire. The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the City, vacated the judgment for Verizon, and remanded for further proceedings.

Remand instructions

The judgment in favor of the City was affirmed. The judgment in favor of Verizon was vacated, and the papers were remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with the decision.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…