Saunders v. Howard Realty Co.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Saunders v. Howard Realty Co.

371 A.2d 274, 118 R.I. 31, 1977 R.I. LEXIS 1425

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedMarch 31, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 371 A.2d 274 (Saunders v. Howard Realty Co.) 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

Saunders v. Howard Realty Co., 371 A.2d 274, 118 R.I. 31, 1977 R.I. LEXIS 1425 (R.I. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Joslin, J.

This is a civil action to recover for injuries sustained by the plaintiff who tripped and fell because of an alleged defect in a public sidewalk in front of the defendants’ premises. It is founded upon the erroneous notion that an owner or occupant of land owes the public a duty to keep an abutting public sidewalk in good repair and condition. Our law does not impose that obligation. Therrien v. First Nat’l Stores, Inc., 63 R.I. 44, 49, 6 A.2d 731, 733 (1939); Sneeson v. Kupfer, 21 R.I. 560, 561, 45 A. 579, 579 (1900). This is not to say that a landowner or occupant will escape liability if the defect responsible for the fall was caused by the fault of the owner or occupant, Sneeson v. Kupfer, supra at 561, 45 A. at 579, or if [32]*32the fall occurs on a passageway located on his premises and provided by him for the use of his tenants. Fuller v. Housing Authority, 108 R.I. 770, 279 A.2d 438 (1971). But in this case the fall was on the public sidewalk, rather than on a common passageway, and nothing in the affidavits on file establishes a factual basis for the plaintiff’s assertion that the defect was attributable to the defendants’ fault. Nor do those affidavits provide a basis for the plaintiff’s novel contention that the defendants had agreed with their tenants to maintain and repair the sidewalk and that consequently she, as a business invitee of one of those tenants at the time of her fall, can maintain her claim as a beneficiary of that agreement.

James J. McGair, for plaintiff. Higgins, Cavanagh & Cooney, Joseph V. Cavanagh, James M. Micali, for defendants.

There being no genuine issue of material fact and the defendants being entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the facts submitted, summary judgment was properly entered. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s appeal is denied and dismissed, and the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

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

Joslin, J.

This is a civil action to recover for injuries sustained by the plaintiff who tripped and fell because of an alleged defect in a public sidewalk in front of the defendants’ premises. It is founded upon the erroneous notion that an owner or occupant of land owes the public a duty to keep an abutting public sidewalk in good repair and condition. Our law does not impose that obligation. Therrien v. First Nat’l Stores, Inc., 63 R.I. 44, 49, 6 A.2d 731, 733 (1939); Sneeson v. Kupfer, 21 R.I. 560, 561, 45 A. 579, 579 (1900). This is not to say that a landowner or occupant will escape liability if the defect responsible for the fall was caused by the fault of the owner or occupant, Sneeson v. Kupfer, supra at 561, 45 A. at 579, or if [32]*32the fall occurs on a passageway located on his premises and provided by him for the use of his tenants. Fuller v. Housing Authority, 108 R.I. 770, 279 A.2d 438 (1971). But in this case the fall was on the public sidewalk, rather than on a common passageway, and nothing in the affidavits on file establishes a factual basis for the plaintiff’s assertion that the defect was attributable to the defendants’ fault. Nor do those affidavits provide a basis for the plaintiff’s novel contention that the defendants had agreed with their tenants to maintain and repair the sidewalk and that consequently she, as a business invitee of one of those tenants at the time of her fall, can maintain her claim as a beneficiary of that agreement.

James J. McGair, for plaintiff. Higgins, Cavanagh & Cooney, Joseph V. Cavanagh, James M. Micali, for defendants.

There being no genuine issue of material fact and the defendants being entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the facts submitted, summary judgment was properly entered. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s appeal is denied and dismissed, and the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

371 A.2d 274, 118 R.I. 31, 1977 R.I. LEXIS 1425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saunders-v-howard-realty-co-ri-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack