Case Title: Shackett v. State

Citation: 201 A.2d 475

Docket Number: 

State: rhode-island

Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Date: 1964-06-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
201 A.2d 475 (1964) Neil SHACKETT v. STATE of Rhode Island. Ex. No. 10633. Supreme Court of Rhode Island. June 16, 1964. Gallogly, Beals & Tiernan, Robert O. Tiernan, Providence, for plaintiff. J. Joseph Nugent, Atty. Gen., Carmine A. Rao, Asst.Atty.Gen., for defendant. CONDON, Chief Justice. This is an action of the case against the state for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff on the Diamond Hill toboggan run operated by the state in the town of Cumberland. The plaintiff was granted special permission to bring the instant action by S424 passed at the January 1961 session of the general assembly and approved June 13, 1961. Acts and Resolves 1961, p. 797. The act is quoted in full in the appendix hereto. Pursuant to the provisions thereof the action was tried to a justice of the superior court without a jury and resulted in a decision for the plaintiff for $25,000. The case is here on the state's bill of exceptions containing a single exception to such decision. The state contends that the decision is not in accord with the law applicable to the evidence in that it does not appear therefrom that it had reasonable notice of the alleged dangerous condition which was the cause of plaintiff's injuries. The short answer to this contention is that the trial justice after reviewing the evidence on this point expressly found as follows: This finding is conclusive unless the state is able to show that it is clearly wrong. In accordance with our long-established rule where "parties submit their case on the law and on the facts to a trial justice sitting without a jury his decision is entitled to great weight and should not be set aside unless it is clearly wrong or fails to do substantial justice between the parties." F.D. McKendall Lumber Co. v. Ramieri, 85 R.I. 92, 126 A.2d 560. We must assume that when the general assembly specially provided that the instant action should be tried by the superior court "as other civil actions at law are tried in said court except that the said Neil Shackett shall have no right to trial by jury, and the court shall determine all questions relating to liability and damages in connection with said claim," that it intended such determination should be reviewed by us in accordance with our well-established rule. From our examination of the transcript we cannot say that the trial justice's finding on the question of notice was clearly wrong. On the contrary we agree with his conclusion that there was substantial evidence tending to prove that the state had reasonable notice of the defect in the toboggan chute which caused plaintiff's injuries. We are also unable to say that the decision fails to do substantial justice between the parties. We are rather of the opinion that on the issues of liability and damages the evidence amply supports the trial justice's conclusions. In view of the description of the plaintiff's cause of action in sec. 1 of the act and the obvious lack of any counterevidence on behalf of the state at the trial on the happening of the accident and the injuries flowing therefrom, we have thought it unnecessary to detail here at length the facts out of which the plaintiff's cause of action arose. In this connection it is sufficient to say that except for its contention on the point of lack of notice it would appear that the state evinced no intention of questioning the justice of the decision. The state's exception is overruled, and the case is remitted to the superior court for entry of judgment on the decision. PAOLINO, J., not participating. "It is enacted by the General Assembly as follows: