The Rhode Island Supreme Court recently emphasized the requirement of expert opinion in an important class of premises liability cases – namely, those in which the plaintiff alleges that negligent design, construction, or maintenance created a dangerous condition. The case is Yanku v. Walgreen, https://www.courts.ri.gov/Courts/SupremeCourt/SupremeOpinions/18-356.pdf. The plaintiff was injured when she tripped and fell on a speed bump in the parking lot of her local Walgeen’s store. “The plaintiff submits that the speed bump was negligently constructed and maintained because it was painted the same color as the lines for the individual parking spaces in the parking lot, and because the parking lot was not properly illuminated.” Walgreens moved for summary judgement, which the trial judge granted because the plaintiff “failed to provide any direct or circumstantial evidence that would give rise to a reasonable inference that a dangerous condition existed on the premises.”
On appeal, the supreme court affirmed, for two separate reasons. First, “[t]he plaintiff’s failure to order the transcript of the summary judgment hearing is fatal to her appeal because it is impossible to conduct a meaningful review of this case; the parties’ arguments at the summary judgment hearing are unknown, and the trial justice did not issue a written decision.” Second – and for our purposes more importantly – even if the plaintiff had ordered a transcript it wouldn’t have helped her, because “the record is…devoid of any affidavits or expert testimony supporting plaintiff’s argument that the speed bump constituted a dangerous condition. The plaintiff’s allegation that the speed bump was a dangerous condition, without more, is not competent evidence of a dangerous condition on the premises; rather, it is nothing more than conjecture or speculation…. [T]he mere occurrence of an accident, without more, does not warrant an inference that a defendant has been negligent.” (Citations and internal quotation marks omitted.)
The claimed design/construction defect in this case was that the speed bump was painted the same color as the parking space lines and the parking lot was inadequately illuminated. To support this contention, the plaintiff needed the opinion of a civil engineer with experience in parking lot design. Furthermore, to establish causation – i.e., to show that she tripped on the speed bump because of the misleading paint and the poor lighting – the plaintiff needed the opinion of a biomechanical engineer or a human factors expert. Vident Partners has top experts in these fields and has significant experience providing experts for all types of premises liability cases.
