Opinion ID: 2403817
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Did Defendant Owe a Duty of Reasonable Care to Plaintiff?

Text: To prevail on a claim of negligence, a plaintiff must establish a legally cognizable duty owed by a defendant to a plaintiff, a breach of that duty, proximate causation between the conduct and the resulting injury, and the actual loss or damage. Mills v. State Sales, Inc., 824 A.2d 461, 467-68 (R.I.2003) (quoting Jenard v. Halpin, 567 A.2d 368, 370 (R.I.1989)). The crux of this appeal is whether defendant owed plaintiff a legal duty, which is a question of law. Martin v. Marciano, 871 A.2d 911, 915 (R.I.2005) (citing Volpe v. Gallagher, 821 A.2d 699, 705 (R.I.2003)). If no such duty exists, then plaintiff's claim must fail, as a matter of law. If the evidence establishes that a duty did run from defendant to plaintiff, then plaintiff is entitled to a determination of the remaining factual questions  did defendant breach the duty of care, and if so, was that breach the proximate cause of plaintiff's harm? See Terry v. Central Auto Radiators, Inc., 732 A.2d 713, 718 (R.I.1999) (Whether [defendant's] inaction amounted to a breach of the duty owed to [plaintiff] was a question of fact[,] which should have been put to the trial jury.); Splendorio v. Bilray Demolition Co., 682 A.2d 461, 467 (R.I.1996) (Ordinarily the determination of proximate cause    is a question of fact that should not be decided by summary judgment.). This Court determines whether a duty exists on a case-by-case basis, considering `all relevant factors, including the relationship between the parties, the scope and burden of the obligation to be imposed upon the defendant, public policy considerations,'    and the `foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff.' Martin, 871 A.2d at 915 (quoting Volpe, 821 A.2d at 705, and Banks v. Bowen's Landing Corp., 522 A.2d 1222, 1225 (R.I.1987)). The linchpin in the analysis of whether a duty flows from a defendant to a plaintiff is foreseeability. Splendorio, 682 A.2d at 466; see Volpe, 821 A.2d at 705. As Justice Cardozo of the New York Court of Appeals said: The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed, and risk imports relation; it is risk to another or to others within the range of apprehension. Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99, 100 (1928); see also Hennessey v. Pyne, 694 A.2d 691, 697 (R.I.1997). This Court has expressed this concept of limiting the scope of a defendant's duty according to risks he or she reasonably perceived, saying that a duty must be based on conduct sufficiently likely to result in the kind of harm suffered by the plaintiff, Volpe, 821 A.2d at 705, or that in order to temper foreseeability    an adequate nexus must exist between the foreseeability of [plaintiff's] harm and the actions of the defendant. Marchetti v. Parsons, 638 A.2d 1047, 1051 (R.I.1994). The plaintiff argues that the risk of the type of harm she suffered was within defendant's range of apprehension because it knew or should have known that grain alcohol is commonly used by minors to engage in fire play. The only evidence plaintiff presented to support this contention was the opinion of Dr. Paolino. However, the trial justice rejected his opinion, saying: [He] may well be qualified as an expert in psychiatry, in pharmacology, perhaps in treating those who suffer from substance abuse, but he is not qualified to give an opinion on whether it is foreseeable that adolescents would light grain alcohol on fire. The admissibility of a proffered expert opinion is a matter left to the sound discretion of the trial justice; absent an abuse of that discretion, this Court will not disturb the trial justice's ruling. Beaton v. Malouin, 845 A.2d 298, 301 (R.I.2004); Geloso v. Kenny, 812 A.2d 814, 817 (R.I.2002). Having carefully reviewed the record, we are satisfied that the trial justice did not abuse her discretion by disregarding Dr. Paolino's opinion. From Dr. Paolino's education and experience, one could reasonably conclude that he was not qualified to give an opinion on a liquor store owner's actual or constructive knowledge about an adolescent's tendency to ignite grain alcohol for sport. See Geloso, 812 A.2d at 817 (A review for abuse of discretion requires us to examine the ruling to ensure that the trial justice's discretion `has been soundly and judicially exercised,    with just regard to what is right and equitable under the circumstances and the law.') (quoting Debar v. Women & Infants Hospital, 762 A.2d 1182, 1185-86 (R.I.2000)). Further, we are not convinced that this type of harm is a foreseeable consequence of the sale of alcohol to minors. The plaintiff asserts that defendant owed her a duty arising out of G.L.1956 § 3-8-5. She contends that her injuries were foreseeable by RC Liquors by virtue of the sheer quantity and volatile nature of the grain alcohol it allegedly sold to seventeen-year-old Andrews, in violation of § 3-8-5. According to plaintiff, the size of the bottle of Everclear and the label warning of the product's flammability put defendant on notice that Andrews intended to share the grain alcohol with other minors and that one of those minors might get burned. In Martin, 871 A.2d at 913, we held that a defendant-homeowner was not entitled to summary judgment in a suit to recover damages suffered by a minor who consumed alcohol on her property. The plaintiff was a guest at a party the defendant hosted for her daughter, with two kegs of beer and a port-a-john available; he admitted to drinking approximately six beers from the kegs. Id. at 914. There was an altercation, and the plaintiff was struck in the head by a baseball bat wielded by a third person, causing the injuries for which he sued the defendant and others. Id. The Superior Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that she had no duty to protect the plaintiff from the attack because it was unforeseeable. Id. This Court vacated the judgment, holding that a social host owes a special duty to his or her underage guests when he or she provides those guests with intoxicants. Id. at 915-16. We reasoned that holding social hosts to such a duty furthered the public policy reflected in our state laws banning underage drinking and prohibiting adults from supplying alcohol to minors. Id. at 916. Furthermore, we concluded that it was foreseeable that when upwards of fifty young people are at a party where alcohol is available, a violent altercation is foreseeable, because the use of intoxicants frequently unduly excites the tempers, emotions and actions of those who indulge in them. Id. at 917 (quoting Fisher v. Robbins, 78 Wyo. 50, 319 P.2d 116, 126 (1957)). The present case is distinguishable from Martin in two crucial ways. First, the minors in Martin were guests at the defendant's home and under her supervision while illegally consuming alcohol, whereas Buonanno, Selwyn, and the others gathered at the barn were neither on RC Liquors' property nor under its supervision when the fire injuring plaintiff occurred. Second, the evidence in Martin suggested that the defendant made alcohol available for consumption by the guests gathered at her house, giving rise to a special duty to protect those guests, but there has been no suggestion that RC Liquors sold grain alcohol to Andrews for the purpose of igniting it. The public policy considerations that shaped the duty of care in Martin are not present in this case. At issue here is whether a purveyor of alcohol owes a duty to protect minors, to whom he or she allegedly supplied alcoholic beverages, from another person's deliberate act of pouring the alcohol over an open flame. The statutes regulating alcohol and minors reflect a public policy against underage drinking and not incendiary behavior. Martin, 871 A.2d at 916; see also G.L.1956 § 3-14-6(a) (A defendant    who negligently serves liquor to a minor is liable for damages proximately caused by the minor's consumption of the liquor.). (Emphasis added.) Moreover, as in Martin, 871 A.2d at 915, 917, public policy is not the sole factor; foreseeability limits the scope of duty. Even if we assume, as we are required to do for purposes of our review, that RC Liquors sold the grain alcohol to Andrews, a minor, we are satisfied that defendant could not reasonably perceive the risk that several weeks later, while the minor was out of the country, some other youth would pour the substance onto an open flame, causing flames to engulf Selwyn. Selwyn was not injured as a result of consumption of the grain alcohol nor was she vulnerable to a dangerous condition created by defendant. [7] No special duty arises from RC Liquors' alleged illegal sale of the Everclear to protect those placed in harm's way by the deliberate ignition of the alcohol by a third person.