Santiago v. First Student, Inc.
839 A.2d 550 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment in a negligence action by relying on speculation or conjecture; they must present competent evidence to establish that the defendant breached a duty of care, as the mere occurrence of an accident does not itself imply negligence.
Facts:
- Between November 17 and November 21, 1997, Alma Santiago, an eighth-grade student, was a passenger on a school bus operated by First Student, Inc.
- Santiago alleges that on an unspecified day and at an unspecified location in Providence, the school bus she was on collided with an unidentified vehicle.
- She claims that the bus driver applied the brakes, causing a collision that jerked her forward and caused the right side of her face to hit the seat in front of her.
- Santiago could not identify the street where the incident occurred, the bus driver (other than a general physical description), or any other passengers except for a girl named 'Daiquiri,' with whom she had lost contact.
- Santiago admitted she did not see the collision occur and could not describe any actions of either driver that led to it.
- No police report was filed for the alleged incident, and there were no other known witnesses.
- First Student, Inc. searched its company records and found no report of an accident matching Santiago's general description during that time period.
Procedural Posture:
- Alma Santiago filed a personal injury lawsuit against First Student, Inc. in the Rhode Island Superior Court (trial court).
- During pretrial discovery, Santiago was deposed and provided testimony about the alleged accident.
- First Student, Inc. moved for summary judgment, arguing there was no evidence to establish its negligence.
- The Superior Court motion justice granted summary judgment in favor of First Student, Inc.
- Santiago, as the appellant, timely appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, the state's highest court.
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 plaintiff's testimony, which lacks specific details regarding the date, location, cause of an accident, and the identity of any witnesses, create a genuine issue of material fact regarding a defendant's negligence sufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A plaintiff's vague and speculative testimony, devoid of essential details, is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding a defendant's negligence. The court reasoned that the mere occurrence of an accident, without more, does not warrant an inference of negligence. A plaintiff must affirmatively establish negligence with competent evidence, not conjecture. Santiago's inability to recall the date, location, the actions of either driver, or any witnesses meant that a finding of negligence would be based on 'rank speculation.' While proving a case may be difficult, the plaintiff is not relieved of their burden to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a material question of fact exists.
Analysis:
This case serves as a clear example of the evidentiary threshold required to survive a motion for summary judgment in a negligence claim. It reinforces the fundamental principle that a plaintiff's allegations must be substantiated by more than mere personal belief or a vague recollection of events. The decision underscores that for a case to proceed to a jury, there must be a foundation of 'competent evidence' from which a reasonable inference of negligence can be drawn, not just speculation. This holding makes it difficult for plaintiffs with significant memory gaps or a lack of corroborating evidence to withstand summary judgment, thereby protecting defendants from having to litigate claims that lack a basic factual basis.
