Charles Kemp v. PJC of Rhode Island, Inc., d/b/a Rite Aid of Rhode Island, Inc., et al.

Summary

The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed judgment in a slip-and-fall action arising from a plaintiff’s fall over a concrete parking stop in a shopping-center parking lot. The Court held that the Rite Aid tenant owed no duty to clear snow from common areas because the lease assigned that responsibility to the landlord, and it upheld the exclusion of post-incident photographs. The Court also affirmed denial of the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, concluding that the evidence supported the jury’s verdict for the defendants.

Holdings

1. A tenant does not owe a duty to clear snow from common areas of a multi-tenant shopping center when the lease assigns responsibility for those areas to the landlord and gives the tenant only a nonexclusive right to use them. Rite Aid therefore owed no duty to Kemp for the parking-lot condition, and judgment as a matter of law in Rite Aid's favor was proper.
2. The trial justice did not abuse his discretion by excluding photographs of snow taken weeks and approximately a year after the accident because they were irrelevant or had minimal probative value, and any probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
3. The trial justice properly denied Kemp's motion for a new trial because the evidence did not establish unusual circumstances that would exempt the case from the Connecticut Rule, under which a business invitor may await a reasonable time after a snowstorm ends before removing snow and ice.
4. The trial justice did not err in finding the witnesses credible and denying a new trial because credibility determinations are principally for the trial justice, and the evidence did not strongly preponderate against the verdict.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Rite Aid owed Kemp a duty of care for a snow-related condition in the shopping-center parking lot despite Kemp's status as an invitee.
2. Whether the trial justice abused his discretion by excluding photographs of snow in the parking lot taken weeks or approximately a year after the accident.
3. Whether the trial justice erred in denying Kemp's motion for a new trial based on the jury's verdict for Riverside and the application of the Connecticut Rule concerning snow removal.
4. Whether the trial justice improperly assessed witness credibility in denying the motion for a new trial.

Disposition

affirmed