Rhode Island has no automobile "guest statue," nor does it subscribe to the doctrine of degrees of negligence. Therefore, "a driver owes his guest the same duty of ordinary care that he owes to any other person. When a driver deviates from the standard of careful operation of his vehicle...any victims of such improper operation (may) recover for their injuries." The contributory negligence of an automobile owner or operator may not be imputed to a guest riding in the automobile.
In simple terms this refers to the right of a passenger in a vehicle to "recover" from any injuries incurred through the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle.
See Chapter 2 Section 93 in Tort Law and Personal Injury Practice, Volume 1 by Ronald J Resmini, Esquire, Providence R.I.
Showing posts with label automobile injuries. Show all posts
Showing posts with label automobile injuries. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Loss Of Consortium in Personal Injury & Auto Accident Cases & Timely Filing in Rhode Island
In Desjarlis v. USAA. Co. 824A.2D 1272 (R.I. 2003 , the husband who was injured in an auto accident, settled with the tortfeasor's (person who commits a wrongful act) insurance company for the policy limits (medical), and his uninsured motorist carrier (defendant) consented to this settlement. The wife did not notify the tortfeasor, his insurance company, or the defendant uninsured motorist carrier of her loss of consortium (inability of one's spouse to have normal marital relations) and society claims until after her husband had settled his claim against the tortfeasor and arbitrated his uninsured motorist claim against the insurer, at which point she filed an action on behalf of herself and her minor children against the defendant-insurer, seeking uninsured benefits, alleging loss of consortium and society.
In Desjarlais II, (the Court) held that the spouse or children of an impaired party (i.e.. the deprived parties) must join their consortium claims with the claim of the impaired party before the impaired party settles his claim, obtains an arbitration award, or before a judgement adjudicating his claim becomes final, whichever event first occurs.
On the facts of the instant case, the court reasoned that the wife sat idly by, with knowledge of her husband's claim, while he was settling and arbitrating them. Since she made no showing that joinder to her husband's claims was not feasible. Desjarlais II ruled that the trial court properly granted summary judgement to the defendant-insurer.
In Desjarlais II, (the Court) held that the spouse or children of an impaired party (i.e.. the deprived parties) must join their consortium claims with the claim of the impaired party before the impaired party settles his claim, obtains an arbitration award, or before a judgement adjudicating his claim becomes final, whichever event first occurs.
On the facts of the instant case, the court reasoned that the wife sat idly by, with knowledge of her husband's claim, while he was settling and arbitrating them. Since she made no showing that joinder to her husband's claims was not feasible. Desjarlais II ruled that the trial court properly granted summary judgement to the defendant-insurer.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Article about the Ronald J. Resmini Law Offices in RWU Law Magazine
Please check out an article that appeared in the RWU Law Magazine (Roger Williams University School of Law Magazine) about the Ronald J. Resmini Law Offices by Denise Perreault. I've copied the article below, but to view the full article, please click on the link I've provided.
http://law.rwu.edu/sites/law/files/flipbooks/fall2012/index.html#/26/
All in the Family
To Practice or Not to Practice? With a Loved One, it's all Relative.
Attorney Ronald J. Resmini has three sons, and each was ushered into the world with a ritual that perhaps only another lawyer could fully appreciate.
Thirty-two years ago, the proud dad, who heads his own law firm in Providence, had the name of each son - R. Jason, Adam J. and Andrew O. Resmini - painted on the doors of three separate offices shortly after each baby was born, establishing actual offices for what were then bawling infants.
"Within six months of their births, their names were on the doors," the elder Resmini says. "They're still there."
Was it an expression of supreme optimism? Or utter foolishness? "It was kind of wishful thinking," Resmini admits. But it worked. Resmini urged his three sons to earn law degrees because he knew how useful such a degree can be, whether one actually practices the law or not. Today the three sons work with their father in a firm where four out of the five practicing attorneys are Resminis.
"I love having the kids around," Resmini says today. "No matter how much we get on each other's nerves, there's nothing like it."
Working together with family members in the law - whether as practicing attorneys, law school instructors and/or administrators - presents exceptional challenges, putting happiness both at home and at work in jeopardy. It is a course of action that some say is fraught with peril - and others say is nothing short of ideal.
Attorney Ronald J. Resmini
Ronald J. Resmini Law Offices LTD
155 South Main Street, Suite 400
Providence, RI 02903
P: (401) 751-8855
Watch Our Latest Videos on Our YouTube Channel
Like Us on Facebook
Follow Us on Twitter
http://law.rwu.edu/sites/law/files/flipbooks/fall2012/index.html#/26/
All in the Family
To Practice or Not to Practice? With a Loved One, it's all Relative.
Attorney Ronald J. Resmini has three sons, and each was ushered into the world with a ritual that perhaps only another lawyer could fully appreciate.
Thirty-two years ago, the proud dad, who heads his own law firm in Providence, had the name of each son - R. Jason, Adam J. and Andrew O. Resmini - painted on the doors of three separate offices shortly after each baby was born, establishing actual offices for what were then bawling infants.
"Within six months of their births, their names were on the doors," the elder Resmini says. "They're still there."
Was it an expression of supreme optimism? Or utter foolishness? "It was kind of wishful thinking," Resmini admits. But it worked. Resmini urged his three sons to earn law degrees because he knew how useful such a degree can be, whether one actually practices the law or not. Today the three sons work with their father in a firm where four out of the five practicing attorneys are Resminis.
"I love having the kids around," Resmini says today. "No matter how much we get on each other's nerves, there's nothing like it."
Working together with family members in the law - whether as practicing attorneys, law school instructors and/or administrators - presents exceptional challenges, putting happiness both at home and at work in jeopardy. It is a course of action that some say is fraught with peril - and others say is nothing short of ideal.
Attorney Ronald J. Resmini
Ronald J. Resmini Law Offices LTD
155 South Main Street, Suite 400
Providence, RI 02903
P: (401) 751-8855
Watch Our Latest Videos on Our YouTube Channel
Like Us on Facebook
Follow Us on Twitter
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Update Rhode Island Tort Law & Personal Injury Practice By Ronald J. Resmini
Chapter 2 Negligence #85
In Ouch v. Khan Khea,963 A 2d 630 (R.I. 2009) two automobile passengers brought a tort (def> a tort is a wrongdoing that results in injury to another person or damage to another's property) action against the defendant/driver, who belonged to the same street gang as the passengers, alleging that the driver's negligent operation of an automobile during and after an incident in which shots were fired at an automobile of a rival gang members constituted the proximate cause of their gunshot injuries. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant, as the operator of the vehicle, had a duty of care - a duty that defendant breached they contended - by driving toward and past a danger (rival gang members). However, the court ruled that, although the defendant unquestionably owed plaintiffs a duty to operate his automobile in a safe manner, the driver did not have a duty of care to the passengers to protect them from the intentional criminal acts of rival street gang members.
The Ronald J. Resmini Law Offices has represented Rhode Island and Massachusetts residents for over 40 years. Contact us if you may have been affected by the negligence of another.
Chapter 2 Negligence #85
In Ouch v. Khan Khea,963 A 2d 630 (R.I. 2009) two automobile passengers brought a tort (def> a tort is a wrongdoing that results in injury to another person or damage to another's property) action against the defendant/driver, who belonged to the same street gang as the passengers, alleging that the driver's negligent operation of an automobile during and after an incident in which shots were fired at an automobile of a rival gang members constituted the proximate cause of their gunshot injuries. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant, as the operator of the vehicle, had a duty of care - a duty that defendant breached they contended - by driving toward and past a danger (rival gang members). However, the court ruled that, although the defendant unquestionably owed plaintiffs a duty to operate his automobile in a safe manner, the driver did not have a duty of care to the passengers to protect them from the intentional criminal acts of rival street gang members.
The Ronald J. Resmini Law Offices has represented Rhode Island and Massachusetts residents for over 40 years. Contact us if you may have been affected by the negligence of another.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)