Ramos v. Napolitano

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Ramos v. Napolitano

633 A.2d 1361, 1993 R.I. LEXIS 208, 1993 WL 441215

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedOctober 18, 1993

DocketNo. 92-0641-Appeal

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 633 A.2d 1361 (Ramos v. Napolitano) 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

Ramos v. Napolitano, 633 A.2d 1361, 1993 R.I. LEXIS 208, 1993 WL 441215 (R.I. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

This matter was before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order directing the plaintiff to appear’ and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. In this case the plaintiff has appealed from an order of the Superior Court dismissing her complaint. She had filed suit against the City of Providence for injuries suffered when she slipped and fell on a sidewalk. The basis of the dismissal was that her notice to the city required by G.L.1956 (1991 Reenactment) § 45-15-9 was not adequate.

After reviewing the memoranda submitted by the parties and after hearing their counsel in oral argument, the court concludes that cause has not been shown.

The notice given to the city by the plaintiff did not indicate where the injury occurred. The plaintiff argued in the trial court and on appeal that her residence address was the site of the injury. Nothing in her notice informed the city of that fact. That omission was the basis of the trial court’s dismissal.

We have held that the notice requirement set forth in § 45-15-9 is a condition precedent to the plaintiffs right of action. Hareld v. Napolitano, 615 A.2d 1015, 1016 (R.I.1992) (citing Barroso v. Pepin, 106 R.I. 502, 506, 261 A.2d 277, 279 (1970)). It may not be waived. Batchelder v. White, 28 R.I. 466, 68 A. 320 (1907).

For these reasons, the plaintiffs appeal is denied and dismissed, the order appealed from is affirmed and the papers of the case are remanded to the Superior Court.

FAY, C.J., did not participate.

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

ORDER

This matter was before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order directing the plaintiff to appear’ and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. In this case the plaintiff has appealed from an order of the Superior Court dismissing her complaint. She had filed suit against the City of Providence for injuries suffered when she slipped and fell on a sidewalk. The basis of the dismissal was that her notice to the city required by G.L.1956 (1991 Reenactment) § 45-15-9 was not adequate.

After reviewing the memoranda submitted by the parties and after hearing their counsel in oral argument, the court concludes that cause has not been shown.

The notice given to the city by the plaintiff did not indicate where the injury occurred. The plaintiff argued in the trial court and on appeal that her residence address was the site of the injury. Nothing in her notice informed the city of that fact. That omission was the basis of the trial court’s dismissal.

We have held that the notice requirement set forth in § 45-15-9 is a condition precedent to the plaintiffs right of action. Hareld v. Napolitano, 615 A.2d 1015, 1016 (R.I.1992) (citing Barroso v. Pepin, 106 R.I. 502, 506, 261 A.2d 277, 279 (1970)). It may not be waived. Batchelder v. White, 28 R.I. 466, 68 A. 320 (1907).

For these reasons, the plaintiffs appeal is denied and dismissed, the order appealed from is affirmed and the papers of the case are remanded to the Superior Court.

FAY, C.J., did not participate.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

633 A.2d 1361, 1993 R.I. LEXIS 208, 1993 WL 441215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramos-v-napolitano-ri-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack