Preview:

Supreme Court
No. 99-187-Appeal.
(WC 97-434)
Joanne S. Ohms                                                                                                  :
v.                                                                                                              :
State of Rhode Island Department of                                                                             :
Transportation et al.                                                                                           :
Present:  Weisberger, C.J., Lederberg, Bourcier, Flanders, and Goldberg, JJ.
O P I N I O N
PER CURIAM.       This case came before the Court for oral argument on December 5, 2000,
pursuant to an order that had directed both parties to appear in order to show cause why the issues
raised by this appeal should not be summarily decided.   After hearing the arguments of counsel and
examining the memoranda filed by the parties, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown and
that the issues raised by this appeal should be decided at this time.  The facts insofar as pertinent to this
appeal are as follows.
On or about August 5, 1994, plaintiff, Joanne S. Ohms (plaintiff), leased a moped from Aldo’s
Mopeds, Inc. (Aldo’s) to tour Block Island.  She signed a lease agreement that contained the following
warning:
“Lessee acknowledges that operation of the leased property entails
risk of accidental bodily injury to Lessee or Lessee’s passengers due to
the inherent danger in operation of said property due to its unique
design, characteristics and the hazardous travel conditions presented
[on] Block Island.   Lessee agrees to comply with all State regulations,
- 1 -




statutes and laws with the operation, use and possession of this moped,
wear a helmet and  eyewear  [sic] at all times and remain on paved
roads.”
The plaintiff had driven a moped on Block Island approximately four times before leasing one this time
from Aldo’s.
After test driving the moped to determine whether it was properly functioning, plaintiff explored
a portion of the island that she had not previously explored.  During the course of her tour, she went on
a road called Mohegan Trail.  She had not previously been on this road, either on a moped or in a car.
As she entered a turn leading to Mohegan Trail, her moped tipped and “went down” on the road.  After
she fell, plaintiff noticed a large amount of gravel, pebbles, and debris in the road.  She contends that the
moped “went down” as a result of hitting  the gravel, pebbles, and debris.   The plaintiff  suffered a
shoulder injury and a large gash, multiple abrasions, and contusions on her right leg.
The plaintiff brought an action against Aldo’s for negligence, alleging that it had failed to warn
her of known and/or foreseeable conditions that existed on roads on which people might drive a moped
on Block Island, where the lease had taken place.   The plaintiff did not contend before the Superior
Court that there was any defect in the moped itself.
On March 5, 1999, a justice of the Superior Court granted  Aldo’s motion for summary
judgment, holding that Aldo’s did not have a duty to  warn lessees of its vehicles about dangerous
conditions that exist on public roads, upon which they might travel.  The motion justice further noted that
the lease agreement signed by plaintiff warned her about the dangers inherent in operating a moped,
including the hazardous road conditions on Block Island.
The plaintiff appealed from the entry of summary judgment in favor of Aldo’s.    She appealed,
even though all the issues in the case had not been decided, pursuant to an order entered by the trial
- 2 -




justice in accordance with Rule 54(b) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure, indicating that
there was no reason for delay.
In reviewing the granting of summary judgment, this Court is bound by the same rules and
standards as are applicable to the motion justice:
“It is well settled that this Court reviews the granting of a summary judgment motion on
a de novo basis.   Marr Scaffolding Co. v. Fairground Forms Inc., 682 A.2d 455, 457
(R.I. 1996).  In conducting such a review, * * * ‘we will affirm a summary judgment if,
after reviewing the admissible evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party, we conclude that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the moving party
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’”   Woodland Manor III Associates v.
Keeney, 713 A.2d 806, 810 (R.I. 1998) (quoting Rotelli v. Catanzaro, 686 A.2d 91,
93 (R.I. 1996)).
The question of the existence of a duty is one of law to be decided by the trial or motion justice.
See Hennessey v. Pyne, 694 A.2d 691, 697 (R.I. 1997); Banks v. Bowen’s Landing Corp., 522 A.2d
1222, 1224 (R.I. 1987).   We held in Ferreira v. Strack, 636 A.2d 682, 687-89 (R.I. 1994), that an
abutting owner has no duty to control traffic or to provide supervision thereof on a public highway.  We
further held that there was no duty to warn the parishioners of a church about the lack of traffic control
on the highway adjacent to the church.   See id. at 689.  Similarly, we conclude that there is no duty on
the part of the lessor of a vehicle to warn the lessee of such vehicle of hazards that may be encountered
on the various highways over which the lessee may travel.  Even in a limited area such as Block Island, it
is scarcely the obligation of a lessor to know the condition of all the highways, roadways, and trailways
upon which a lessee may travel.  We are of the opinion that the motion justice was correct in finding that
the warning given to the plaintiff was adequate to apprise her of the roadway dangers that she might
encounter.
- 3 -




Consequently, the appeal of the plaintiff is denied and dismissed, and the summary judgment
entered in the Superior Court is hereby affirmed.  The papers in the case are remanded to the Superior
Court.
- 4 -




COVER SHEET
TITLE OF CASE:       Joanne S. Ohms v. State of Rhode Island Department of
                     Transportation et al.
DOCKET NO.:          99-187 - A.
COURT:               Supreme Court
                     DATE OPINION FILED:     January 19, 2001
Appeal from                                                                  County:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:    Superior                                                Washington
JUDGE FROM OTHER
COURT:               Vogel, J.
JUSTICES:            Weisberger, C.J., Lederberg, Bourcier,
                     Flanders, Goldberg, JJ.                                 Concurring
WRITTEN BY:          PER CURIAM
ATTORNEYS:           Susan Carlin
For Plaintiff
ATTORNEYS:           Ronald Langlois, Lauren D. Wilkins, George H. Rinaldi
Richard B. Woolley
For Defendant

Download 99-187.pdf

Rhode Island Law