Summary
The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed summary judgments for a tenant and property owners in a personal injury action arising from the plaintiff’s fall on a cracked and uneven public sidewalk. The court held that abutting property owners and tenants owed no duty to repair, maintain, or warn about the condition of a public sidewalk where they had not created the defect and did not possess or control the sidewalk. The court also held that a town ordinance requiring sidewalk maintenance created a duty to the municipality, not to individual passersby.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether summary judgment was proper where the plaintiff failed to produce competent evidence establishing a genuine dispute of material fact.
- Whether an owner or tenant of property abutting a public sidewalk owes a passerby a duty to repair or maintain the sidewalk when the owner or tenant did not create the dangerous condition.
- Whether an abutting property owner that owes no duty to repair or maintain a public sidewalk nevertheless owes a duty to warn passersby about its condition.
Holdings
- Summary judgment was proper because Wyso failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact and failed to demonstrate that either the tenant or the property owners owed him a legally cognizable duty of care.
- A property owner whose property abuts a public way owes no duty to repair or maintain the public sidewalk, absent evidence that the property owner created or caused the dangerous condition.
- A property owner that owes no duty of care concerning the condition of a public sidewalk also owes no duty to warn individuals who use that sidewalk about the condition.
- Section 15(a) of the Town of New Shoreham Ordinances did not create a private duty owed by defendants to individual sidewalk users.
Key quotations
“In the absence of such a duty, “the trier of fact has nothing to consider and a motion for summary judgment must be granted.”” (-4-)
“The existence of a duty of care is a legal question reserved for the trial justice, not for the jury.” (-4-)
“A property owner owes a duty of care to those whom he can reasonably expect to be on his property.” (-5-)
Factual background
On September 6, 2007, Peter Wyso fell on a cracked and uneven section of public sidewalk abutting 104 Water Street on Block Island. The property was owned by Frederick and Deborah Howarth and leased to Full Moon Tide, LLC and Strings & Things, Inc. Wyso alleged that defendants negligently failed to inspect, repair, or maintain the sidewalk and later sought to add a claim that the property owners had a duty to warn. He did not allege that defendants created or caused the sidewalk defects.
Procedural history
Wyso filed a negligence action in Washington County Superior Court after falling on a cracked and uneven public sidewalk abutting the defendants' property. The Superior Court granted summary judgment to Full Moon Tide and later to the Howarths, concluding that Wyso had not shown a genuine issue of material fact or that defendants owed him a duty of care; it also denied his motion to amend as to Full Moon Tide. The Rhode Island Supreme Court consolidated the appeals, ordered the parties to show cause why the case should not be summarily decided, and affirmed.
Remand instructions
The record was remanded to the Superior Court after affirmance of the judgment.