Volume 177 — Atlantic Reporter, Third Series

The plaintiffs appeal from the Providence County Superior Court hearing justice's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant. The incident underlying this appeal was a fatal car accident in Providence caused by a juvenile after he stole a van from the defendant's premises. On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that the hearing justice erred in concluding that the defendant did not owe a duty to the plaintiffs because questions of fact exist. The Supreme Court concluded that the defendant did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiffs. The Court held that, despite the plaintiffs' contentions that various issues of fact still remained at the summary judgment stage, some of the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs was inadmissible hearsay and not competent evidence admissible at summary judgment. Next, the Court determined that there was no duty owed on the basis of any purported special relationship between the defendant and the juvenile or the plaintiffs because there was no evidence that the juvenile was known in any way to the defendant. Further, the Court reasoned that, even if the defendant had failed to follow its security protocols, thus purportedly enabling the juvenile to break into its premises and steal the keys to the van, a car accident some distance away from the facility was not a foreseeable consequence of a breaking and entering at the premises. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court. Justice Goldberg did not participate.

These consolidated cases came before the Supreme Court on an appeal and a petition for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for review of a November 5, 2015 bench decision in Providence County Superior Court in favor of the plaintiff, John R. Grasso. The defendants, Governor Gina Raimondo, Frank Karpinski, the Employees' Retirement System of Rhode Island, and the State of Rhode Island, contended before the Supreme Court that the trial justice erred in determining that Mr. Grasso need not comply with G.L. 1956 §§ 45-21-23 and 45-21-24 in order to continue receiving his accidental disability pension because, in his view, those sections were not applicable to his pension. The Supreme Court held that Mr. Grasso was indeed required to comply with §§ 45-21-23 and 45-21-24 and, as such, could be required to undergo independent medical examinations and disclose information with respect to gainful employment as conditions of his accidental disability pension under G.L. 1956 § 45-21.2-10. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Superior Court.