Opinion ID: 2058115
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Town of Johnston

Text: The plaintiff argues that the trial justice erred by granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of the town. The trial justice held that, pursuant to § 32-6-3, the recreational use statute, Johnston was not liable to plaintiff for an injury suffered on its soccer field because, as long as there was no evidence of willful and wanton negligent conduct by the town, its employees, agents, or servants, the town was immune from suit. When reviewing a motion for judgment as a matter of law, a trial justice considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. DeChristofaro v. Machala, 685 A.2d 258, 262 (R.I.1996). The trial justice may not weigh the evidence or evaluate the credibility of witnesses and draws from the record all reasonable inferences that support the position of the nonmoving party. Id. (citing Hoffman v. McLaughlin Corp., 675 A.2d 404, 405 (R.I.1996)). If, after such a review, there remain factual issues upon which reasonable persons might draw different conclusions, the motion [for judgment as a matter of law] must be denied, and the issues must be submitted to the jury for determination. Id. When this Court reviews a trial justice's decision on a motion for judgment as a matter of law, we are bound by the same rules and analysis as the trial justice. Hoffman, 675 A.2d at 405. The plaintiff argues that the recreational use statute does not apply to the town's soccer field. According to plaintiff, at least when the field is used for high school soccer games and is not open to the public as anticipated by the enactment, the recreational use statute does not apply. She further contends that the statute does not pertain to claims for injuries suffered by student-athletes who are invitees to whom a special duty of care is owed. We are satisfied that plaintiff was not a member of the public as contemplated by the recreational use statute. The declared purpose of § 32-6-3 is to encourage owners of land to make land and water areas available to the public for recreational purposes by limiting their liability to persons entering thereon for those purposes. Section 32-6-1. (Emphasis added.) In Tantimonico v. Allendale Mutual Insurance Co., 637 A.2d 1056, 1060 (R.I.1994), this Court noted that the obvious intention of the Legislature was to treat those who use private property for recreational purposes as though they were trespassers. [9] The clear intent of the recreational use statute is to shield landowners against liability to those who come upon the owner's land for recreation; a student athlete participating in an organized sport on a designated athletic field does not fall within its provisions. The soccer game played on the field in question was a school-sponsored event that took place under the active supervision of school officials. In such a circumstance, plaintiff cannot be treated as though she were a trespasser. Id. at 1060. The plaintiff argues that, as a student playing in a high school soccer game, she was an invitee of the Town of Johnston and as such was owed a special duty of care. The plaintiff characterizes the relationship between Johnston and plaintiff as one in which the town has a duty to protect student-athletes on its field. Further, plaintiff contends that the relationship between the student and the school does not end with the afternoon dismissal, but rather continues to school sponsored activities and the teams that are invited to participate in those activities. We agree. In the context of this case, Johnston is not insulated from liability for its ordinary negligence. Moreover, the public duty doctrine does not provide it with a safe harbor. A student-athlete in these circumstances is an identifiable person to whom the school district owes a special duty of care such that the public duty doctrine will not relieve it from liability for its negligent acts. In Saunders v. State, 446 A.2d 748, 750 (R.I.1982), this Court noted that when special circumstances bring to the state's attention an identifiable group of persons at risk of harm, a special duty of care is owed. The public duty doctrine shields the state and its political subdivisions from tort liability arising out of discretionary governmental actions that by their nature are not ordinarily performed by private persons except in three situations. [10] Schultz, 755 A.2d at 155 (quoting Haley v. Town of Lincoln, 611 A.2d 845, 849 (R.I.1992)). One such situation is when the government owes a special duty to the plaintiff. Id. (citing Kuzniar v. Keach, 709 A.2d 1050, 1053 (R.I.1998)). In Schultz, 755 A.2d at 155-56, this Court held that government municipalities may be liable under the special duty doctrine if, as here: (1) a municipal official has knowledge of the plaintiff or her situation; (2) municipal officials acted or failed to act in some way that was potentially injurious to a plaintiff; and (3) the injury was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the municipality's action or inaction. We hold that such a special relationship existed here, between Johnston and plaintiff, such that Johnston owed a special duty to the plaintiff to protect her from the grievous injury suffered in this case. School children form an identifiable group subject to foreseeable harm. See Schultz, 755 A.2d at 156. The plaintiff was a student playing in a soccer game on a field owned and operated by the Town of Johnston. The plaintiff was not protected from the potential hazard posed by the water drain and a jury could conclude that her injury was a foreseeable result of the town's breach of its duty of care. If we held that the recreational use statute applied to students while playing organized sports on school premises, then school children and their parents would be forced to bear the risk of deficient facilities and defective conditions over which they have no control. Thus, we hold that Johnston owed the plaintiff a special duty of care to protect her from a dangerous condition on the athletic field. We are satisfied that a jury, based on this record, reasonably could find Johnston liable for negligently allowing a dangerous condition on its premises and negligently failing to warn plaintiff of this danger. To support its contention that the town is immune pursuant to § 32-6-3, Johnston points to this Court's decision in Hanley v. State, 837 A.2d 707 (R.I.2003). In Hanley, this Court applied the recreational use statute to the claims brought by a camper for injuries suffered in a fall on a road in a state park. In reaching our holding in Hanley, this Court stated: [I]mmunity does not depend upon the specific activity pursued by the plaintiff at the time of the plaintiff's injury. Rather, the inquiry should focus on the nature and scope of the activity for which the premises are held open to the public. The goal is to determine the character of the premises. Hanley, 837 A.2d at 713 (quoting Rankey v. Arlington Board of Education, 78 Ohio App.3d 112, 603 N.E.2d 1151, 1154 (1992)). We are of the opinion that Hanley is distinguishable from the facts in the case at bar. The recreational use statute requires an examination of the nature and scope of the activities occurring on the land and thus mandates that the premises be available to the public for recreational purposes. This soccer field was not open to the public for recreational activities when Morales was injured; to the extent that the field was open to the public, if at all, the public's right to use the facility and the scope of its use were controlled. The field was developed, utilized and maintained for school-sponsored athletics. In Hanley, the plaintiff was injured in a state park where her only relationship to the property was as a recreational user of a public campground. Hanley was injured at a place the public was invited for recreational use. Because our focus is on the character of the premises and the nature and scope of the activity for which the premises are held open to the public, this case is not controlled by the recreational use statute. At the time of plaintiff's injury, only members of the Central Falls and Johnston soccer teams were permitted on the field. The area where plaintiff suffered her injury was an extension of the playing field. [11] Therefore, we are of the opinion that the trial justice erred in granting judgment as a matter of law in Johnston's favor. The judgment with respect to Johnston is vacated.