Opinion ID: 2823219
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The RUS is Implicated by Plaintiff’s Injury

Text: The plaintiff relies on Morales v. Town of Johnston, 895 A.2d 721, 731 (R.I. 2006), for her argument that defendant owed a duty to her in this case because her use of Tuckertown Field was not the type of use the RUS was meant to cover. We do not agree. In Morales, 895 A.2d at 724, the plaintiff, a Central Falls High School athlete, was injured while she was playing in a soccer game at Johnston High School. Significantly, on the day Ms. Morales was injured, the field was being “utilized and maintained for school-sponsored athletics.” Id. at 731. When reviewing cases in which the RUS may apply we examine “the nature and scope of the activities occurring on the land.” Id. In order for the RUS to apply, “the premises [must] be available to the public for recreational purposes.” Id. Unlike the open spectator areas at Tuckertown Park where plaintiff was injured, the field in Johnston, at least on that day, was “not open to the public for recreational activities when Morales was injured” because no one except those associated with either high school team was allowed in the area at that time. Id. Rather, we are persuaded by the argument of defendant that Pereira, 21 A.3d at 375, is on all fours with this case. The facts in Pereira are strikingly similar to the facts here; the plaintiff was a spectator at her grandson’s soccer game, a game that was played in a city-owned andmanaged park, she paid no fee to enter, and she injured her ankle when she fell into a hole in the common area of that park. Id. at 370-71. In deciding Pereira, we held that Morales was -7- “inapposite” to and “clearly distinguishable” from the case of Ms. Pereira. Id. at 375. The same is true for Ms. Carlson. The area where plaintiff was injured, which was both away from the field of play and in an area where, plaintiff admits, “[T]here were people around the whole of the baseball field,” was in space which the general public was free to access for recreational use. Therefore, it was not error for the hearing justice to apply the RUS to plaintiff’s case. C. The § 32-6-5(a)(1) Exception to the RUS is Inapplicable Alternatively, plaintiff argues that defendant engaged in willful or malicious conduct, mandating the application of an exception to the RUS. See § 32-6-5(a)(1). To support this argument, plaintiff relies on Berman I, 991 A.2d at 1051, where this Court held that the city of Newport “had an affirmative duty to take reasonable steps to warn and shield unsuspecting visitors” to the famed Cliff Walk. Citing that case as support, plaintiff correctly states in her brief that “the broad protections created for landowners under § 32-6-3 are not absolute.” However, in deciding Berman I, 991 A.2d at 1052, we were of the opinion that, because of the unique situation, where there was a “strong likelihood that a visitor to the Cliff Walk would suffer serious injury or death,” Newport owed a duty to users of the path. In that light, a factfinder could determine that the city intentionally or voluntarily failed to guard against future injuries and, consequently, the requirements of the § 32-6-5(a)(1) exception were met. Berman I, 991 A.2d at 1052. But in the case currently before us, no such strong likelihood of injury was known to defendant. Ms. Murphy testified that she and her department had received no notice of the hole; otherwise, the record is silent about whether the town ever received notice of the area in which plaintiff was injured. Of the holes that caused plaintiff’s injury, Ms. Murphy said, “I’m not sure it’s a common problem,” but conceded, “I am aware that that type of thing can happen,” and -8- plaintiff’s witness described similar holes as a “repetitive problem.” In our opinion, such evidence falls woefully short of establishing the existence of sufficient facts to show that the town knew of the particular hole that injured plaintiff or of similar persons injured by similar