Plourde v. Myers

Summary

The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed a defense verdict in a personal-injury action arising from a rear-end collision in a private hospital parking lot. The court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, waived their challenge to the use of vehicle-damage photographs by failing to object on the asserted ground, and were not entitled to a jury instruction under the Rhode Island vehicle-safety statute because it applied to highways and specified public property. The court also held that the plaintiffs waived their appellate argument concerning voir dire about Allstate employment because they had requested voir dire concerning Allstate insurance instead.

Holdings

1. The trial justice properly denied judgment as a matter of law because reasonable jurors could conclude from the evidence that Myers acted reasonably and was not negligent.
2. The trial justice properly denied the motion for a new trial because the evidence was evenly balanced and reasonable minds could differ, and the trial justice did not overlook or misconceive material evidence or act clearly wrong.
3. The plaintiffs waived their argument that expert testimony was required to use photographs of minimal vehicle damage to challenge the claimed injuries because they did not object on that ground at trial and did not object to the photographs' use in closing argument.
4. Section 31-23-1 did not apply because the collision occurred in a private parking lot rather than on a highway or state, city, or town-owned public property; therefore, the trial justice properly refused the requested instruction.
5. The plaintiffs waived the voir-dire issue because their actual request was to ask whether jurors were insured by Allstate, not whether Allstate employed any jurors, which was the issue asserted on appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial justice properly denied the plaintiffs' motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial.
2. Whether the plaintiffs preserved an objection to the use of photographs showing minimal automobile damage to challenge the severity or causation of the claimed injuries.
3. Whether Rhode Island General Laws § 31-23-1 required a jury instruction concerning the duty to maintain a vehicle in safe operating condition when the collision occurred in a private parking lot.
4. Whether the plaintiffs preserved a challenge based on the trial justice's refusal to conduct additional voir dire concerning Allstate.

Disposition

affirmed