6 Rhode Island opinions name it 1 courts 1992–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Rhode Island courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Haddad v. First National Stores, Inc.green2 sentences2011The first case this Court considered after adopting the attractive nuisance doctrine did not apply it because the injuries in question had occurred before this Court’s decision in Haddad v. First National Stores, Inc., 109 R.I. 59 , 280 A.2d 93 (1971). 2011The first case this Court considered after adopting the attractive nuisance doctrine did not apply it because the injuries in question had occurred before this Court’s decision in Haddad v. First National Stores, Inc., 109 R.I. 59 , 280 A.2d 93 (1971). | 2 | 5 |
Tara J. Cancel, as Administratrix of the Estate of Ira Lukens v. City of Providencegreen1 sentence2022Although plaintiff is correct that we have previously stated that the RUS treats users of property open to the public for recreational use as trespassers, see, e.g., Cancel v. City of Providence, 187 A.3d 347, 350 (R.I. 2018), we find no support for plaintiff’s contention that “the standard must be identical under the common law and the RUS.” However, because Berman does not aid plaintiff even if this were a RUS case, we decline to decide here whether RUS caselaw is applicable to common-law trespass cases. - 13 - Additionally, many of our previous cases on landowner liability to trespassers ha | 1 | 1 |
Hawkins v. Town of Fostergreen1 sentence2013“The findings of a trial justice sitting without a jury are entitled to great weight, and the resolution of mixed questions of law and fact, as well as the inferences and conclusions drawn from the testimony and evidence, are entitled to the same deference.” Rhode Island Depositors Economic Protection Corp. v. Bowen Court Associates, 763 A.2d 1005, 1007 (R.I.2001) (quoting Hawkins v. Town of Foster, 708 A.2d 178, 182 (R.I.1998)). | 1 | 1 |
Ferreira v. Strackgreen1 sentence2013We have defined “trespasser” as “[o]ne who intentionally and without consent or privilege enters another’s property.” Bennett v. Napolitano, 746 A.2d 138, 141 (R.I.2000) (quoting Ferreira v. Strack, 652 A.2d 965, 969 (R.I.1995)). | 1 | 1 |
Bennett v. Napolitanogreen1 sentence2013We have defined “trespasser” as “[o]ne who intentionally and without consent or privilege enters another’s property.” Bennett v. Napolitano, 746 A.2d 138, 141 (R.I.2000) (quoting Ferreira v. Strack, 652 A.2d 965, 969 (R.I.1995)). | 1 | 1 |
Rhode Island Depositors Economic Protection Corp. v. Bowen Court Associatesgreen1 sentence2013“The findings of a trial justice sitting without a jury are entitled to great weight, and the resolution of mixed questions of law and fact, as well as the inferences and conclusions drawn from the testimony and evidence, are entitled to the same deference.” Rhode Island Depositors Economic Protection Corp. v. Bowen Court Associates, 763 A.2d 1005, 1007 (R.I.2001) (quoting Hawkins v. Town of Foster, 708 A.2d 178, 182 (R.I.1998)). | 1 | 1 |
Hill v. National Gridgreen1 sentence2013Ill Discussion On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial justice erred in finding that the attractive-nuisance doctrine did not apply because plaintiff “did not fully realize the risk in taking the bottles of sulfuric acid.” The plaintiff further argues that the trial justice erred in failing to find that defendant shared “some comparative fault for the accident.” “It is a well-established principle of law that property owners owe no duty of care to trespassers but to refrain from wanton or willful conduct; and even then, *861 only upon discovering a trespasser in a position of danger.” Hill | 1 | 1 |
Mariorenzi v. Joseph DiPonte, Inc.green2 sentences2011See Mariorenzi v. Joseph DiPonte, Inc., 114 R.I. 294 , 300 n. 1, 333 A.2d 127 , 130 n. 1 (1975). . 2011See Mariorenzi v. Joseph DiPonte, Inc., 114 R.I. 294 , 300 n. 1, 333 A.2d 127 , 130 n. 1 (1975). . | 1 | 1 |
Holland v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroadgreen2 sentences1997Finally, because the risk of injury from an oncoming train would be apparent to anyone who decides to walk along a train trestle, we hold that as a matter of law the trestle was not an “attractive nuisance.” See Haddad, 109 R.I. at 61-67 , 280 A.2d at 95-98 (discussing and adopting the attractive-nuisance doctrine); see also Holland v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 431 A.2d 597, 602 (D.C.Ct.App.1981) (en banc) (“[t]he overwhelming weight of authority in jurisdictions across the country is that the attractive nuisance exception does not apply as a matter of law in cases where child trespassers 1997Finally, because the risk of injury from an oncoming train would be apparent to anyone who decides to walk along a train trestle, we hold that as a matter of law the trestle was not an “attractive nuisance.” See Haddad, 109 R.I. at 61-67 , 280 A.2d at 95-98 (discussing and adopting the attractive-nuisance doctrine); see also Holland v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 431 A.2d 597, 602 (D.C.Ct.App.1981) (en banc) (“[t]he overwhelming weight of authority in jurisdictions across the country is that the attractive nuisance exception does not apply as a matter of law in cases where child trespassers | 1 | 1 |
Brownfield v. Missouri Pacific Railroadgreen2 sentences1997Finally, because the risk of injury from an oncoming train would be apparent to anyone who decides to walk along a train trestle, we hold that as a matter of law the trestle was not an “attractive nuisance.” See Haddad, 109 R.I. at 61-67 , 280 A.2d at 95-98 (discussing and adopting the attractive-nuisance doctrine); see also Holland v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 431 A.2d 597, 602 (D.C.Ct.App.1981) (en banc) (“[t]he overwhelming weight of authority in jurisdictions across the country is that the attractive nuisance exception does not apply as a matter of law in cases where child trespassers 1997Finally, because the risk of injury from an oncoming train would be apparent to anyone who decides to walk along a train trestle, we hold that as a matter of law the trestle was not an “attractive nuisance.” See Haddad, 109 R.I. at 61-67 , 280 A.2d at 95-98 (discussing and adopting the attractive-nuisance doctrine); see also Holland v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 431 A.2d 597, 602 (D.C.Ct.App.1981) (en banc) (“[t]he overwhelming weight of authority in jurisdictions across the country is that the attractive nuisance exception does not apply as a matter of law in cases where child trespassers | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Rhode Island. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Berman v. Sitrin
green
1 sentence2022The attractive- nuisance doctrine, which does consider constructive discovery, has no place in the present case because it is undisputed that at the time of the accident plaintiff was eighteen years old, and “in no case have we applied the attractive-nuisance doctrine to a child older than twelve years old.” Burton, 80 A.3d at 862 . 3 We also note that Berman v. Sitrin, 991 A.2d 1038 (R.I. 2010), is a case that only considered duties owed under the RUS, not under the common law, and that the RUS is inapplicable here because the substation was decidedly not “land * * * ma[de] * * * available to | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Steven T. Burton v. State of Rhode Island
green
1 sentence2022The attractive- nuisance doctrine, which does consider constructive discovery, has no place in the present case because it is undisputed that at the time of the accident plaintiff was eighteen years old, and “in no case have we applied the attractive-nuisance doctrine to a child older than twelve years old.” Burton, 80 A.3d at 862 . 3 We also note that Berman v. Sitrin, 991 A.2d 1038 (R.I. 2010), is a case that only considered duties owed under the RUS, not under the common law, and that the RUS is inapplicable here because the substation was decidedly not “land * * * ma[de] * * * available to | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Previte v. Wanskuck Co.
green
2 sentences2000The holding in Previte v. Wanskuck Co., 80 R.I. 1, 90 A.2d 769 (1952), as it related to an infant trespasser was overruled by this Court's decision in Haddad v. First National Stores, Inc., 109 R.I. 59, 64-65 , 280 A.2d 93, 96-97 (1971), in which we adopted the attractive nuisance doctrine. 2000The holding in Previte v. Wanskuck Co., 80 R.I. 1, 90 A.2d 769 (1952), as it related to an infant trespasser was overruled by this Court's decision in Haddad v. First National Stores, Inc., 109 R.I. 59, 64-65 , 280 A.2d 93, 96-97 (1971), in which we adopted the attractive nuisance doctrine. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.