Jean Laprocina, as Administratrix of the Estate of George N. Laprocina v. Nicole C. Lourie

Syllabus

The plaintiff, Jean Laprocina, as Administratrix of the Estate of George N. Laprocina, appealed from a Superior Court judgment in favor of the defendant, The Narragansett Electric Company (Narragansett), following the grant of Narragansett's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the plaintiff asserts that (1) the trial justice abused her discretion by granting Narragansett's motion for summary judgment after, according to the plaintiff, another justice of the Superior Court had denied essentially the same motion (2) Narragansett had a duty to inspect, maintain, and repair streetlights and (3) there is a question of fact as to whether Narragansett was negligent and whether it had actual or constructive knowledge of the malfunctioning streetlight. The Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff's argument that, under the law of the case doctrine, the second trial justice abused her discretion in granting summary judgment after the first summary-judgment motion had been denied the Court held that the record reflected that different, although closely connected, arguments had been raised and considered on each summary-judgment motion. The Court next considered whether Narragansett owed a legal duty to individual members of the public to repair streetlights. Having concluded that Narragansett owed no regulatory or statutory duty of care to individual members of the public, the Court turned to the relevant common law duty factors to determine whether Narraganset owed a duty in this case. After considering the facts of this case in conjunction with well-settled Rhode Island law and the prevailing view of jurisdictions that have considered this issue, the Court concluded that a public utility generally owes no common law duty to individual third parties who are allegedly injured, at least in part, as a result of inoperable streetlights. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.