Bennett v. Napolitano
2000 WL 217629, 2000 R.I. LEXIS 46, 746 A.2d 138 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipality owes a duty only to refrain from willfully or wantonly causing injury to individuals who are trespassing on city property, such as a park, after it has closed for the night, not a duty of reasonable care.
Facts:
- Donald Bennett regularly walked his dogs in Roger Williams Park in Providence, Rhode Island, around 2 a.m. for approximately ten years, using Frederick C. Green Memorial Boulevard within the park.
- On September 1, 1994, while Donald Bennett was walking his dogs, a tree limb estimated to be forty to sixty feet in length fell and struck him, rendering him unconscious.
- Donald Bennett was treated for severe dizziness, ringing in his ear, slurred speech, blurred vision, and a headache, and later experienced multiple seizures requiring medication.
- The Providence Code of Ordinances § 18-2 states that Roger Williams Park is open to the public from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., and no person shall enter or be within the park except during these regular hours.
- Louis Bobola, the city forester, opined that the tree limb fell due to an internal infestation of carpenter ants, causing damage that was not visible through external observation.
- Donald Bennett admitted that he had passed the tree approximately five times per week in the three months prior to the accident but had not observed any defect or anything unusual about the tree.
Procedural Posture:
- Donald Bennett filed a notice of injury and a claim for compensation against the City of Providence on September 20, 1994, pursuant to G.L.1956 § 45-15-5.
- When his claim was not satisfied within forty days, Donald Bennett commenced a lawsuit against the City of Providence in Superior Court, alleging that the city was negligent.
- The City of Providence filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Donald Bennett was trespassing and the city therefore owed him a duty only to refrain from willfully or wantonly causing injury.
- The motion justice granted the City of Providence's motion for summary judgment and entered judgment accordingly.
- Donald Bennett appealed the Superior Court's judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a municipality owe a duty of reasonable care to an individual who is injured in a city park while trespassing after its designated closing hours, or only a duty to refrain from willfully or wantonly causing injury?
Opinions:
Majority - LEDERBERG, Justice
No, a municipality does not owe a duty of reasonable care to an individual injured while trespassing in a city park after its designated closing hours; rather, it only owes a duty to refrain from willfully or wantonly causing injury. The court reaffirmed that an individual who enters a city park after closing is considered a trespasser, citing Brindamour v. City of Warwick. In Rhode Island, a landowner's duty to a trespasser is limited to refraining from willfully or wantonly causing injury, a rule re-established in Tantimonico v. Allendale Mutual Insurance Co. Donald Bennett admitted he was in the park after closing, violating the Providence Code of Ordinances. The court rejected Donald Bennett's argument that the city had implicitly invited him by not ejecting him over ten years, stating that local police or park rangers cannot waive duly enacted ordinances. Furthermore, the court found no evidence of willful or wanton conduct by the city; the city forester testified the tree limb fell due to an invisible internal infestation, and Donald Bennett himself had not observed any defect despite frequent passes. Therefore, the city's conduct did not meet the high threshold for liability to a trespasser.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the limited duty of care owed by landowners, particularly municipalities, to trespassers in Rhode Island. It clarifies that mere inaction by city officials in enforcing park closure ordinances does not constitute implied consent or elevate the city's duty of care beyond refraining from willful or wanton conduct. The decision sets a high bar for plaintiffs seeking damages when injured on public property while trespassing, requiring clear evidence of intentional or reckless harm by the municipality. Future cases will likely cite this precedent to dismiss negligence claims against municipalities where the injured party was in violation of posted rules or ordinances, unless the municipality's actions were demonstrably willful or wanton.
