 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mills v. Nahabedian6/11/2003
The plaintiff, Geraldine Mills, M.D. (plaintiff), appeals pro se from a jury verdict in favor of the defendant-landlord, Gloria Nahabedian (defendant), in this constructive eviction case. This case came before the Supreme Court for oral argument on April 9, 2003, pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not summarily be decided. After hearing the parties' arguments and examining their memoranda, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown and proceed to decide the appeal at this time.
I. Facts and Travel
The plaintiff is a pediatrician who maintained her practice in a first-floor office she rented from defendant. In March 1996, water leaked into her office damaging the carpeting. The defendant replaced the carpet on July 16. According to plaintiff, the replacement carpet emitted toxic fumes and foul odors that caused her and her patients to become ill. The plaintiff contacted defendant to inform her of the alleged problems with the carpet, but she said that defendant failed to correct the situation. As a result of the alleged noxious fumes and odors, plaintiff asserts that she was forced to vacate the office on August 9, 1996. On May 8, 1997, plaintiff filed the instant action against defendant for constructive eviction. Thereafter, on July 14, 1999, plaintiff initiated a separate action against defendant, the carpet manufacturer and the carpet installer seeking compensation for personal injuries she allegedly suffered because of the carpet's supposed toxic emissions. Mills v. State Sales, Inc., No. 2001-82-A. (R.I., filed June 10, 2003). The plaintiff's personal injury and constructive eviction cases were consolidated in February 2000.
The facts leading up to trial are fully set forth in Mills v. State Sales, Inc., and need not be reiterated at length here. In that opinion, we affirmed the trial justice's ruling excluding plaintiff's experts' testimony because their opinions were not based on scientifically valid methods or theories. Because expert testimony was required to establish a causal connection between plaintiff's alleged injuries and the carpet, judgment was entered in favor of the defendants in plaintiff's personal injury case on September 6, 2001. See id. However, her constructive eviction case proceeded to trial.
Before trial, plaintiff's legal counsel, Judith Scott and Robert Scott (collectively referred to as "the Scotts"), filed a motion to withdraw from representing plaintiff in the matter. That motion was granted and plaintiff appeared pro se at trial beginning on April 10, 2002. After hearing four days of testimony, the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant. The plaintiff timely appealed.
II. Discussion
First, plaintiff contends that the trial justice erred by not granting her a continuance after the Scotts withdrew shortly before trial. According to plaintiff, the trial justice's refusal to continue the matter effectively forced her to represent herself. However, the record indicates that plaintiff never requested a continuance after the Scotts withdrew. This Court will not entertain an issue raised for the first time on appeal. Ridgewood Homeowners Association v. Mignacca, 813 A.2d 965, 977 (R.I. 2003). Accordingly, plaintiff waived her right to challenge the trial justice's management of the trial calendar.
Next, plaintiff challenges the propriety of the jury's verdict. Essentially, she contends that the jury should have accepted her argument that defendant constructively evicted her by failing to replace the malodorous carpet. Thus, plaintiff is asking this Court to pass on the weight of the evidence and th
Page 1 2 3 Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|