Martin v. Altman

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Martin v. Altman

568 A.2d 1031, 1990 R.I. LEXIS 18, 1990 WL 4690

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedJanuary 26, 1990

Docket89-238-Appeal

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 568 A.2d 1031 (Martin v. Altman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Martin v. Altman, 568 A.2d 1031, 1990 R.I. LEXIS 18, 1990 WL 4690 (R.I. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This ease came before a hearing panel of this court for oral argument January 16, 1990 pursuant to an order which had directed both parties to appear in order to show cause why this appeal should not be summarily decided. The plaintiff had appealed from a summary judgment entered in the Superior Court.

After hearing the arguments of counsel and examining the memoranda filed by the parties, we are of the opinion that the trial justice was correct in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant, since an abutting owner of real estate has no duty to pedestrians to remove ice and snow or otherwise to keep the abutting sidewalk in good condition. See Saunders v. Howard Realty Co., 118 R.I. 31, 371 A.2d 274 (1977); Therrien v. First National Stores, 63 R.I. 44, 6 A.2d 731 (1939). The ordinance of the City of Providence which requires an abutting owner to clear the adjacent sidewalk of snow and ice creates only a duty to the municipality at large and not to individual passers-by. Prosser and Keeton, Torts, § 36 at 222-24 (5th ed.1984); *1032 Restatement of Torts, 2nd, § 288, illustration 5.

Consequently, the appeal of the plaintiff is denied and dismissed and the summary judgment entered in the Superior Court is hereby affirmed.

MURRAY and SHEA, JJ., did not participate.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This ease came before a hearing panel of this court for oral argument January 16, 1990 pursuant to an order which had directed both parties to appear in order to show cause why this appeal should not be summarily decided. The plaintiff had appealed from a summary judgment entered in the Superior Court.

After hearing the arguments of counsel and examining the memoranda filed by the parties, we are of the opinion that the trial justice was correct in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant, since an abutting owner of real estate has no duty to pedestrians to remove ice and snow or otherwise to keep the abutting sidewalk in good condition. See Saunders v. Howard Realty Co., 118 R.I. 31, 371 A.2d 274 (1977); Therrien v. First National Stores, 63 R.I. 44, 6 A.2d 731 (1939). The ordinance of the City of Providence which requires an abutting owner to clear the adjacent sidewalk of snow and ice creates only a duty to the municipality at large and not to individual passers-by. Prosser and Keeton, Torts, § 36 at 222-24 (5th ed.1984); *1032 Restatement of Torts, 2nd, § 288, illustration 5.

Consequently, the appeal of the plaintiff is denied and dismissed and the summary judgment entered in the Superior Court is hereby affirmed.

MURRAY and SHEA, JJ., did not participate.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

568 A.2d 1031, 1990 R.I. LEXIS 18, 1990 WL 4690, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-altman-ri-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack