Charles Kemp v. PJC of Rhode Island, Inc., d/b/a Rite Aid of Rhode Island, Inc.

Syllabus

The plaintiff in a slip-and-fall action appealed from a Providence County Superior Court hearing justice's grant of summary judgment in favor of one defendant, Rite Aid, and he also appealed from the trial justice's denial of his motion for a new trial in favor of the other two defendants, Riverside and Venditelli. On appeal, the plaintiff contends that Rite Aid owed a duty to him based on his status as an invitee, that the trial justice erred in granting the defendants' motion in limine as to the admission of certain photographs, and that the trial justice erred in denying his motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court concluded that the defendant, Rite Aid, did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, based on the terms of the relevant lease agreement. Additionally, the Court held that the trial justice did not abuse his discretion in precluding the photographs at issue. Finally, the Court determined that the trial justice was not clearly wrong in denying the plaintiff's motion for a new trial based on the application of the Connecticut Rule regarding snow removal because the plaintiff failed to put forth evidence of any unusual circumstances. Thus, the Supreme Court affirmed the order and judgment of the Superior Court.