Opinion ID: 2274434
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: City of Newport's Liability

Text: As previously stated, the RUS accords a member of the public the status of a trespasser, qualified only by the landowner's responsibility to refrain from willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity after discovering the user's peril[.] Section 32-6-5(a)(1). The city contends that it has no duty to maintain the Cliff Walk or to warn visitors of its known hazards unless a city employee, perhaps by happenstance, is present on the Cliff Walk and fails to warn a visitorsuch as plaintiffwho is approaching danger. [11] Although this may be a plausible argument based on our previous cases in which we touched upon § 32-6-5(a)(1), this argument must fail in the face of the facts and the instrumentality at issue in this case. It is a well settled principle of our law that this Court will not interpret a statute literally when doing so would lead to an absurd result, or one that is at odds with legislative intent. See Raso v. Wall, 884 A.2d 391, 395 n. 11 (R.I.2005) (recognizing that the plain meaning approach to statutory construction is not to be adhered to when it would lead to an absurd result) (citing State v. Santos, 870 A.2d 1029 (R.I. 2005)). This Court always will strive to adopt a construction of a statute that avoids an absurd or unjust result. Id. (citing Berthiaume v. School Committee of Woonsocket, 121 R.I. 243, 247, 397 A.2d 889, 892 (1979)). Under the RUS, a landowner enjoys immunity from ordinary negligence unless the landowner engages in behavior that falls within the exceptions set forth in the statute. It is the exception set forth in § 32-6-5(a)(1) that is relevant to this case; that is, liability is not limited in any way [f]or the willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity after discovering the user's peril[.] Essentially this is a two-part test. It remains for the fact-finder to determine whether the city engaged in a willful or malicious failure to warn or guard against a known danger. However, it is the last phraseafter discovering the user's perilthat requires our analysis and leads us to conclude that applying the term literally is unreasonable and would render the exception meaningless in the context of this case. Accordingly, we shall address the phrases separately, and we shall analyze the more troublesome phrase first.