Patricia Sullo v. David Greenberg

Summary

The Rhode Island Supreme Court vacated summary judgment for a podiatrist in a premises-liability action arising from the plaintiff’s fall on a wet entrance ramp during a winter precipitation event. The court held that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the extent and nature of any snow or ice accumulation, which affected application of the Connecticut Rule. The court rejected the plaintiff’s alternative argument that the defendant’s status as her physician imposed a heightened duty of care concerning the entranceway and remanded the case.

Holdings

1. Summary judgment was improper because genuine issues of material fact existed concerning whether snow or ice had accumulated at the location of Sullo's fall and whether the storm was ongoing or had ended. Those factual questions were material to determining whether the Connecticut Rule relieved Greenberg of a duty to treat the entranceway.
2. Greenberg did not owe Sullo a heightened duty of care with respect to the office entrance merely because he was her physician. He owed her the ordinary duty of a business invitor concerning the entranceway and the physician's duty of care concerning her medical treatment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a genuine issue of material fact existed concerning the extent and character of the snow or ice at the location where Sullo fell, such that application of the Connecticut Rule could not be resolved on summary judgment.
2. Whether Greenberg owed Sullo a heightened duty of care because he was her physician.

Disposition

vacated