Court Opinion

ID: 9754300
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:54:31.126232+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:51.751635
License: Public Domain

FLANDERS, Justice,
with whom Justice FLAHERTY joins, dissenting.
We respectfully dissent. We do not agree that the plaintiffs complaint fails to include a claim for premises liability against the defendant PFL Life Insurance Company (PFL). According to Black’s Law Dictionary 1199 (7th ed. 1999), “premises liability” is defined as “[a] landowner’s * * * tort liability for conditions or activities on the premises.” Thus,
“premise-liability law in Rhode Island imposes an affirmative duty upon owners and possessors of property: ‘to exercise reasonable care for the safety of persons reasonably expected to be on the premises * * * including] an obligation to protect against the risks of a dangerous condition existing on the premises, provided the landowner knows of, or by the exercise of reasonable care would have discovered, the dangerous condition.’ ” Kurczy v. St. Joseph Veterans Association, Inc., 820 A.2d 929, 935 (R.I.2003) (quoting Tancrelle v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp., 756 A.2d 744, 752 (R.I. 2000)).
Here, the complaint alleged that defendant PFL owned the Newport shopping mall. It also alleged that PFL negligently provided security for these premises when it knowingly allowed a dangerous individual to remain there, and that this asserted negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiffs injuries.2 Just last term we *1122“recognize[d] that the duty of landowners and possessors of property to prevent third persons whom they permit to use their property from intentionally harming or creating an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to others is an exception to the general rule that ‘a landowner has [no] duty to protect another from intentional criminal acts of third parties which take place on adjacent property or the public way.’ ” Volpe v. Gallagher, 821 A.2d 699, 715 (R.I.2003) (quoting Ferreira v. Strack, 636 A.2d 682, 686 (R.I.1994)). If a residential landowner, as in Volpe, can be found liable for knowingly allowing individuals to remain on the property in question and to engage in dangerous activities thereon that create unreasonable risks of injury for third parties, then a fortiori commercial landowners such as PFL, who invite the general public onto their premises, can be held liable for engaging in such conduct. Thus, in our judgment, this complaint — even though it never used the words “premises liability” — adequately alleged a breach of defendant’s duty as owner of a Newport shopping mall to provide safe premises for members of the invited public. In other words, contrary to the “parenthetical” determination of the motion justice on this subject (“[p]arenthetically * * * this complaint is * * * not one sounding in * * * premises liability”), we believe that plaintiffs complaint did, in fact, sound in premises liability. Significantly, we are never told why the motion justice reached a contrary conclusion. And even though the majority attempts to draw a significant distinction between what it calls “a general claim for negligence” and a premises-liability case, we fail to fathom the attempted distinction in this case between “demonstrating] the security guard was negligent by failing to act as a reasonably prudent security guard would have acted under the circumstances, imputing that negligence to [PFL],” and “demonstrating] that RIBI’s [the security-guard firm’s] negligence constituted a direct failure by [PFL] to fulfill its duty to provide safe premises.” Respectfully, we are of the opinion that such a distinction (if it exists at all) is one that has no legal significance whatsoever in this case because in either situation the property owner’s duty to the injured mall patron devolves from his status as a property owner, not from characterizing the claim as one sounding in general negligence, in negligently providing security, or in premises liability.
Moreover, pursuant to Rule 8(a) of the Superior Court Rule of Civil Procedure, no magic words are required to state a claim; rather, all that is required of a complaint is “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and * * * a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.” A plaintiff is not required “to plead the ultimate facts that must be proven.” Haley v. Town of Lincoln, 611 A.2d 845, 848 (R.I.1992). Most significantly, a plaintiff is not required, “to set out the precise legal theory upon which his or her claim is based.” Id. What is required “is that the complaint gives the opposing party fair and adequate notice of the type of claim being asserted.” Id. “[G]reat generality in such a statement *1123is allowed” so long as the complaint gives fair notice to the defendant of the claim. Id. In the specific context of this case,
“the invitee must allege and prove some specific act * * * by the owner which amounts in the law to a breach of duty owed to him; [and] that the breach of duty was the proximate cause of the injury sustained * * Dawson v. Rhode Island Auditorium, Inc., 104 R.I. 116, 124-25, 242 A.2d 407, 413 (1968).
In our judgment, this complaint, although perhaps less than ideally clear in its draftsmanship, sufficiently alleged that defendant mall owner breached a duty to provide adequate security to invitees such as plaintiff while they were present on the mall’s premises, and that this breach supposedly caused plaintiffs injury. Thus, the mere fact that the complaint does not mention the phrase “premises liability” or the landowner’s legal duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition for the invited public should not be deemed to constitute a fatal deficiency in a notice-pleading jurisdiction such as Rhode Island.
This is so because — as a matter of law, and regardless of whether the plaintiff includes such an allegation in the complaint — “a landowner [or possessor of property] has a duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of persons reasonably expected to be on the premises * * Tancrelle, 756 A.2d at 752; Dawson, 104 R.I. at 124, 242 A.2d at 413. See also Gormley v. Vartian, 121 R.I. 770, 780, 403 A.2d 256, 261 (1979) (a lessor who maintains control over common areas has a duty of reasonable care to those reasonably expected to be on the premises of the common area). “[A] landowner owes * * * a business invitee a duty to use reasonable care to keep [its] premises in a safe condition for the purposes of the invitation * * Dawson, 104 R.I. at 124, 242 A.2d at 413. This legal duty exists because a landowner or possessor who is in control of property is in the best position to protect against harm caused by the use of the property or by any dangerous condition that may arise there. W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, § 57 at 386 (5th ed. 1984).
This duty to provide safe premises for invitees is one that is comprehensive in scope. Molinari v. Sinclair Refining Co., 111 R.I. 490, 493, 304 A.2d 651, 653 (1973). “In appropriate circumstances, actionable negligence may be found where a reasonably prudent person would have foreseen that a dangerous condition existing on the premises could cause injury to business invitees.” Id. Thus, although the owner of such premises is “not an insurer of the invitee’s safety, * * * [it must] exercise reasonable care to determine whether the premises are in a safe condition for the invitee to do those things for which the invitation was issued.” Id. at 493-94, 304 A.2d at 653.
The legal question posed by this case is whether a landowner’s duty to use reasonable care to protect business invitees encompasses a duty, under certain circumstances, to provide protection against or security from the intentional criminal acts of third persons that occur on the premises. To date, this Court has not addressed that precise issue. But compare Ferreira, 636 A.2d at 685-86 (holding that a landowner has no duty to protect another from intentional criminal acts of third parties that take place on an adjacent public way) with Volpe, 821 A.2d at 718 (holding that the residential landowner breached a duty to control unreasonably dangerous activities on her property when she allowed her adult son, who suffered from a delusional mental illness, to keep guns on the property and he used one of them to shoot their neighbor).
*1124Many other jurisdictions, however, have held that a commercial property owner’s failure to protect an invitee from the criminal acts of third persons or the failure to provide “security” to a business invitee may, under certain circumstances, fall within the duty of the landowner or possessor of property to keep the premises reasonably safe for the purposes of the invitation. E.g., Taylor v. Centennial Bowl, Inc., 65 Cal.2d 114, 52 CaLRptr. 561, 416 P.2d 793, 797 (1966); Stewart v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., 234 Conn. 597, 662 A.2d 753, 761-62 (1995); Jardel Co. v. Hughes, 523 A.2d 518, 525 (Del. 1987); Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491, 405 S.E.2d 474, 476-77 (1991); American National Insurance Co. v. Hogue, 749 So.2d 1254, 1258 (Miss.Ct.App.2000); Nallan v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 N.Y.2d 507, 429 N.Y.S.2d 606, 407 N.E.2d 451, 457-58 (1980); McClung v. Delta Square Limited Partnership, 937 S.W.2d 891, 905 (Tenn.1996). See Whittaker v. Saraceno, 418 Mass. 196, 635 N.E.2d 1185, 1187 (1994); Walls v. Oxford Management Co., 137 N.H. 653, 633 A.2d 103, 104 (1993); see also Restatement (Second) Torts § 344 (1965).3
In this case, plaintiffs claim against PFL for negligent failure to provide security was not pled in a vacuum. As the complaint alleges, it was PFL, in its capacity as oumer of the premises, that, through its “agents, servants, and/or employees” is alleged to have negligently failed to provide security by knowingly allowing “a male assailant * * * known * * * to pose an immediate threat of bodily harm to the plaintiff * * * to remain on the above described premises.” Thus, given these allegations, the issue of whether PFL as the owner of the mall can be held liable for RIBI’s allegedly negligent security lapse is no different from the issue of whether RIBI’s alleged security lapse constituted a breach of defendant’s duty to provide safe premises. In the context of this case, such an attempted distinction is one that is without any legal significance.
And even though it is true that plaintiff does not explicitly challenge on appeal the motion justice’s conclusory statement, when ruling on the summary-judgment motion, that “[pjarenthetically * * * this complaint is not one sounding in * * * premises liability,” we believe that plaintiff implicitly does so by contending that PFL should not be allowed to evade its duty to provide safe premises for its business invitees merely by hiring one or more independent contractors to manage the property or to arrange for security on the premises. Thus, in its argument to this Court, plaintiff contends that “PFL’s duty to maintain the Mall in a reasonably safe condition was a non-delegable duty,” and that “landowners have a duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of individuals reasonably expected to be on their premises.” Indeed, plaintiffs whole argument on appeal turns on its contention that PFL owed him a duty in its capacity as the owner of the shopping mall that could not be delegated to an independent contractor. Thus, through this argument, plaintiff necessarily challenges the motion justice’s conclusion that this action was not *1125one sounding in premises liability. And even though PFL on appeal may be relying on the fact that the motion justice analyzed this case only under a general negligence standard, plaintiff convincingly assails the motion justice for doing so because a fair reading of the complaint shows that the negligence claim alleged is one against the owner of a retail-shopping mall, which opened these premises to the general public.
On the merits of this legal issue, we are of the opinion that the independent-eon-tractor rule should not apply to commercial property owners such as this defendant who invite members of the public on to their premises. When an owner of commercial property has a duty, either by statute or under common law, to provide reasonably safe premises for the public to use, it cannot evade this duty simply by contracting with a third party. See Moseley v. Fitzgerald, 773 A.2d 254, 258 (R.I.2001) (per curiam) (“The basis for imposing a duty of care in premises liability cases is that the defendants must have possession and control over the premises.”). In Moseley, we held that a joint owner of the commercial property in question (a utility pole), could not immunize itself from liability to a member of the public who was injured in a collision with an attached guy wire merely because it had entered into a property maintenance agreement with another party. Id. Even though such contracts may entitle the party in control of the premises to obtain indemnification or contribution from the independent contractor, they should not insulate the controlling owner from liability with respect to the claims of members of the public who are injured on the premises. Id. Otherwise, well-heeled landowners — including utilities, shopping-mall conglomerates, and insurance companies such as PFL who dabble in real estate as owners, investors, or entrepreneurs — could contract away their legal duty to provide safe premises by the simple expedient of entering into management, maintenance, and security agreements with fly-by-night “independent contractors” that may be here today but judgment-proof tomorrow.
This is why § 425 of the Restatement (Second) Torts precludes a landowner or possessor from insulating itself from liability to business invitees merely by delegating its property-related duties to an independent contractor.4 This exception to the independent-contractor rule is linked expressly to the duty the landowner owes to its invitees to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition. See Restatement (Second) Torts § 425 (1965). Without this exception, a landowner or business proprietor could effectively circumvent the duty of providing safe premises for the invited public, simply by contracting away its responsibilities to one or more relatively irresponsible or impecunious third parties.
Thus, we also would hold that the motion justice erred when he dismissed the case on summary judgment because of the independent-contractor rule — a legal doctrine that, in our opinion, was inapplicable to the alleged facts of this situation. The motion justice cited the case of East Coast Collision & Restoration, Inc. v. Allyn, 742 A.2d 273 (R.I.1999), to support his decision to apply the independent-contractor rule. *1126But that case involved the claim of a commercial tenant against its landlord for property damage to a leased automotive body shop caused by an electrical fife. Unlike this case, it did not involve the personal-injury claim of a business invitee who was injured on premises that the owner or possessor had opened to the general public. Thus, East Coast Collision should not have controlled the result in this case.
To prevent a landowner from effectively evading its duty of providing safe premises for the invited public to use, we would adopt the principles set forth in the above-quoted §§ 425 and 344 of the Restatement and apply them to this case. Therefore, we would hold that the motion justice erred when he relied upon the independent-contractor rule to grant summary judgment to the mall owner, thereby insulating this landowner from liability for its alleged negligence in adequately safeguarding the premises that it invited the public to use.
In short, if ever there was a premises liability case, this is it. The alleged breach of this mall owner’s asserted duty to provide security arose solely from its status as the owner of the premises in question. Because the premises were held open to the public for business and commercial purposes, the mall owner indisputably owed a duty to the members of that invited public, including plaintiff, to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. And one aspect of that duty was for it to provide reasonable security for its invited patrons in light of the particular factual circumstances that existed at that mall. Applying the principles set forth in §§ 425 and 344 of the Restatement, we would hold that the mere fact that the mall owner entered into a contract with another firm to manage the mall — and that the manager thereafter arranged with yet another independent contractor for it to provide security services' at the mall — did not serve to insulate the mall owner from liability vis-a-vis the negligence claims of members of the public, such as this plaintiff, who allege they were injured on the premises because of an unsafe condition there.
For these reasons, we would reverse, vacate the summary judgment that entered in favor of the mall owner, and remand this case for trial to determine whether, under the circumstances of this case, PFL breached the duty it owed to the plaintiff to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition.

. The specific allegations in plaintiff’s complaint were, in pertinent part, as follows:
"3. At all times pertinent to this complaint, Defendant was the owner of certain real property, with the buildings, improvements[,] common areas and premises known as the Newport Mall, located in the City of Newport[,] County of Newport, State of Rhode Island, and identified as Lot 75 on Newport Tax Assessor's Plat 4.
*1122"6. On or about June 13, 1995, a male assailant, known to the defendant, its agents, servants and/or employees to pose an immediate threat of bodily harm to the plaintiff was allowed to remain on the above described premises.
"8. The injuries sustained by the plaintiff were a direct and proximate result of, but not limited to, the defendant’s, its' [sic] agents, servants, and/or employees [sic] negligent failure to provide security, recklessness, carelessness, misfeasance and/or malfeasance without any negligence on the part of the plaintiff.”

. Restatement (Second) Torts § 344 (1965) provides as follows:
"A possessor of land who holds it open to the public for entry for his business purposes is subject to liability to members of the public while they are upon the land for such a purpose, for physical harm caused by the accidental, negligent, or intentionally harmful acts of third persons or animals, and by the failure of the possessor to exercise reasonable care to (a) discover that such acts are being done or are likely to be done, or (b) give a warning adequate to enable the visitors to avoid the harm, or otherwise to protect them against it.”

. Restatement (Second) Torts § 425 (1965) provides as follows:
"One who employees an independent contractor to maintain in safe condition land which he holds open to the entry of the public as his place of business * * * is subject to the same liability for physical harm caused by the contractor's negligent failure to maintain the land or chattel in reasonably safe condition, as though he had retained its maintenance in his own hands.”