Borgo v. Narragansett Elec. Co.

275 A.3d 567

Flavia Linnea BORGO

v.The NARRAGANSETT ELECTRIC COMPANY d/b/a National Grid et al.

No. 2021-21-Appeal.

PC 16-2407

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

June 6, 2022

Matthew D. Provencher, Esq., for Plaintiff.

Mark P. Dolan, Esq., for Defendant.

Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, and Lynch Prata, JJ.

Chief Justice Suttell, for the Court.

A tragic accident in a utility substation resulted in serious injuries to the plaintiff, eighteen-year-old Flavia Linnea Borgo (plaintiff or Borgo), including the amputation of her left hand. The question confronting us is whether the property owner, the defendant, The Narragansett Electric Company d/b/a National Grid (defendant or National Grid), owed a duty of care to Borgo, an admitted trespasser at the time of the accident.¹ A justice of the Superior Court ruled that National Grid did not owe Borgo a duty of care and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff now appeals the Superior Court judgment. This case came before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. After considering the parties’ written and oral submissions and reviewing the record, we conclude that cause has not been shown and that this case may be decided without further briefing or argument. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.

IFacts and Travel

This action arises out of events that took place in April 2014. At that time, plaintiff was a freshman at Rhode Island School of Design (RISD) in Providence. According to plaintiff's deposition testimony, during the spring semester she was enrolled in various art classes, including a design class that required her to complete a "cityscape project"—that is, to photographically capture different parts of the city from different vantage points and "combine them into a painting."

A few weeks before the accident, plaintiff began thinking about including a property located at the corner of Eddy and South Streets in Providence in her cityscape project. The plaintiff testified that she discussed entering onto the property to take photographs with Nicholas Meehan, a fellow RISD student and a friend of plaintiff. According to plaintiff, Meehan told her that he had entered the property twice previously, and he agreed to accompany her. The plaintiff also testified that, before she attempted to enter the property, she had heard other RISD students discussing entering the property and had seen students using photographs of the property as references for drawings and paintings they worked on in the RISD studios. According to plaintiff, at the time she decided to enter the property, she believed that the property was abandoned.

In the spring of 2014, the property in question contained two adjacent buildings that shared a wall but were otherwise entirely separate. At that time, one building was a decommissioned generating station not owned or maintained by National Grid, and the other building was an active electrical substation. It is uncontested that, at the time relevant to this action, National Grid owned and maintained the substation.

The plaintiff and Meehan entered the property on April 5, 2014, sometime around eight o'clock in the evening. The plaintiff testified that she did not see any signage indicating that the property was owned by National Grid or any signs that the property was still in use by anyone. Additionally, according to plaintiff, the gate in the fence on the property in front of the facility was physically open when she and Meehan arrived at the property that night, and there was no other fence blocking access to the buildings. However, National Grid contests plaintiff's testimony of the facts and asserts that there was a "No Trespassing" sign on a closed fence that plaintiff and Meehan crawled under to access the substation. This factual disparity is immaterial to our analysis, as there can be no question but that plaintiff was a trespasser.

After entering the property, plaintiff and Meehan climbed a fire escape to access the roof of the substation building, where, according to plaintiff, they took pictures of the Providence skyline. It is undisputed that plaintiff and Meehan then entered the building through a window or door on the roof of the building; however, plaintiff testified that the opening was uncovered, while National Grid contends that plaintiff and Meehan removed plywood to access the entry point. According to plaintiff, there was a ladder directly below the window that neither she nor Meehan placed there, but which facilitated their entry into the substation building.

At her deposition, plaintiff testified that, after she and Meehan entered the building, they wandered throughout the facility for a short while, sometimes taking photographs, until they came to a room that was like a long corridor. The plaintiff testified that her last memory before the accident was walking down that long hallway within the substation.

At his deposition, Meehan testified to having witnessed the accident. According to Meehan, the long corridor was filled with doors on one side that looked like doors to rooms, although it is undisputed that at least one was actually a door to a cabinet containing electrical equipment. Meehan testified that, within a few seconds of entering the long hallway, plaintiff's body came in contact with something inside a cabinet and suddenly there were sparks, a bright flash, and an indescribable noise. According to Meehan, the doors on the cabinet may have been open, and in her papers plaintiff asserts that they were. Meehan testified that he grabbed plaintiff by her shirt and pulled her away from the cabinet; he then called 911.

According to Meehan, after the accident plaintiff fell on the ground and had a seizure. The plaintiff testified that she has a brief memory of being rescued by emergency personnel and then of waking up in the hospital later that night. As a result of the accident, plaintiff spent two months in the hospital, and her left hand was amputated.

On May 25, 2016, plaintiff filed a complaint in the Providence County Superior Court against National Grid and others alleging negligence. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that National Grid "owed a duty to maintain its substation * * * in a reasonably safe condition[,]" that it did not do so, and that "[a]s a direct and proximate result" of defendant's negligence, "plaintiff Flavia Linnea Borgo suffered severe and permanent injuries to her mind and body[.]"

In May 2020, after years of discovery, National Grid filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that "[d]ue to the plaintiff's status as an adult trespasser, National Grid owed her no duty of care as a matter of law and is thus entitled to summary judgment." The plaintiff objected to the motion, and a hearing was held on October 2, 2020. In a bench decision rendered on that same day, the hearing justice granted National Grid's motion for summary judgment. On October 14, 2020, both an order granting National Grid's motion for summary judgment and a judgment in favor of National Grid entered. The plaintiff timely appealed the grant of National Grid's motion and resulting judgment.

IIStandard of Review

"This Court will review the grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo [.]" Shorr v. Harris, as Trustee of Trust of Anna H. Blankstein , 248 A.3d 633, 636 (R.I. 2021) (quoting Lehigh Cement Co. v. Quinn , 173 A.3d 1272, 1275 (R.I. 2017) ). "We will affirm a summary judgment if, after reviewing the admissible evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, we conclude that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Id. (quoting Midland Funding LLC v. Raposo , 222 A.3d 484, 486 (R.I. 2019) ). We have previously emphasized that "summary judgment is a drastic remedy, and a motion for summary judgment should be dealt with cautiously." Id. (quoting Lehigh Cement Co. , 173 A.3d at 1275 ). Furthermore, "the function of the trial justice in ruling on a motion for summary judgment is issue finding, not issue determination." Limoges v. Nalco Company , 157 A.3d 567, 571 (R.I. 2017) (quoting Goodkin v. DeMaio , 664 A.2d 1119, 1120 (R.I. 1995) (mem.)).

"This Court has often instructed that ‘issues of negligence are ordinarily not susceptible of summary adjudication, but should be resolved by trial in the ordinary manner.’ " Correia v. Bettencourt , 162 A.3d 630, 635 (R.I. 2017) (quoting Newstone Development, LLC v. East Pacific, LLC , 140 A.3d 100, 103 (R.I. 2016) ). However, "[s]ummary judgment should enter against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case" because the "complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial." Vicente v. Pinto's Auto & Truck Repair, LLC , 230 A.3d 588, 591, 592 (R.I. 2020) (brackets omitted) (quoting Holley v. Argonaut Holdings, Inc. , 968 A.2d 271, 274 (R.I. 2009) ).

IIIDiscussion

On appeal, plaintiff contends that the hearing justice erred by granting National Grid's motion for summary judgment. Specifically, plaintiff argues that the hearing justice erred by not considering plaintiff's argument that National Grid owed plaintiff a duty not under premises liability, but rather as a result of its power-distribution activities that were regulated by the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and subject to certain safety regulations.

Alternatively, plaintiff contends that, even if the hearing justice properly determined that National Grid could only have owed plaintiff a duty under premises liability, the hearing justice erred by failing to recognize that notice of repeated trespass could create a landowner's duty to a trespasser in the absence of actual discovery of that trespasser.

...