 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Selwyn v. Ward7/7/2005
ain alcohol light it on fire." Doctor Paolino expressed his opinion that: "It is very foreseeable that adolescents and young adults in the possession of * * * grain alcohol will frequently light it on fire." The plaintiff also supplied a picture of the Everclear bottle, which includes a warning about the product's flammability.
The plaintiff argued that defendant breached its duty of care when it sold the grain alcohol to Andrews with actual or constructive knowledge of the "fire play" allegedly linked to Everclear. She conceded that there was "no allegation that this incident occurred due to the intoxication of a minor that [RC Liquors] sold grain alcohol that occasioned, in whole or in part, the intoxication of a minor." She instead asserted that the cause of the incident was "horseplay." The plaintiff argued that " number of drink recipes and web sites encourage this fire play" and that purveyors of grain alcohol should be aware that those drinks are lit on fire. The plaintiff also argued that defendant's violation of the state law prohibiting sales of liquor to minors was evidence of its negligence and that the statute is intended "to protect minors from injury by alcohol." Further, plaintiff asserts that the state Dram Shop Act "broadens liability."
The trial justice granted defendant's motion. After rejecting the testimony of Dr. Paolino on the ground that he was not qualified to give the proffered opinion, the trial justice ruled that plaintiff's claim failed on the element of foreseeability. The trial justice reasoned:
" here is no nexus, by statute or by common law, that would find that the conduct, if any, of the defendant in selling grain alcohol * * * to the minor, who then allegedly gave it to her friend and went to Italy, would be liable under the circumstances of this case where there is no allegation that the injury occurred because any minor -- or adult, for that matter -- imbibing the alcohol, which caused, in whole or in part, that individual's intoxication. It would seem that there's no statutory authority for this cause of action that the misconduct, if any, of the defendant was rendered remote by intervening independent acts of others."
Judgment entered pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure, and plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal.
Issues on Appeal
The plaintiff argues that the trial justice erred by granting summary judgment in favor of RC Liquors because the documents produced illustrate that defendant negligently caused Selwyn's injuries by selling the Everclear to Andrews. In addition, plaintiff contends that defendant's alleged violation of state liquor laws establishes a cause of action in negligence against defendant under the Dram Shop Act. Lastly, plaintiff asserts that defendant can be held strictly liable because selling grain alcohol to a minor is an ultrahazardous activity.
Standard of Review
This Court reviews the grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo, according to the same standards applicable to the trial justice. Town of Cumberland v. Rhode Island Interlocal Risk Management Trust, Inc., 860 A.2d 1210, 1214 (R.I. 2004). We consider the evidence presented, without evaluating its weight or credibility, and will affirm the granting of 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." Id. (quoting Rotelli v. Catanzaro, 686 A.2d 91, 93 (R.I. 1996)); see also Weaver v. American Power Conversion Corp., 863 A.2d 193, 200 (R.I. 2004).
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|