Rhode Island dog bites cause serious injuries each year, and they often result in the hospitalization of the bite victim. Dog owners can be held accountable in a civil claim for the damages that result from their dog’s actions. Attacks that occur at the dog owner’s home, or possibly elsewhere, may be covered by a Rhode Island homeowner’s insurance policy, even in situations in which the bite victim is the owner of the home. Some insurance policies contain exclusions for dog or animal attacks, and homeowners should be sure to have the correct policy in effect and notify their insurance company if they intend to purchase a pet.

Homeowner’s insurance policy exclusions are not always black-and-white, and insurance companies have been known to deny coverage for an incident or injury based on a supposed exclusion in the policy, which may not be applicable or enforceable under state law. Insurance policies are sometimes written to benefit the insurance company and encourage denials of claims that are actually covered under the policy if someone takes a closer look. Dog bites aren’t the only type of injury that may be covered under a homeowner’s policy, and injuries that occur far from the property may also be covered. Any injuries that occur as a result of negligence by a homeowner or their dependent should be evaluated by a legal expert to determine if there is a possible claim under the homeowner’s insurance policy to recover damages.

Have You Been Injured by Someone’s Negligence?

If you or a loved one has been injured as a result of a dog bite or another negligent act, you may be able to recover compensation for your injuries through a Rhode Island insurance claim. The skilled Rhode Island insurance attorneys at Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC can help you determine if you have a meritorious claim, and we can represent you against the insurance company to fight for the settlement or jury award that you deserve. Our experienced Rhode Island attorneys have the knowledge, dedication, and skill necessary to succeed in claims against large insurance companies. To learn more about how our team of experienced attorneys can help you with your claim, and to talk to an experienced insurance attorney today, call 401-300-4055 to schedule a free consultation.

The Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (the “Act”), which took effect on January 1, 1987, was meant to update and clarify the laws regarding rentals and the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants. The Act applies to rental agreements for residential dwelling units that were entered into, extended, or renewed after January 1, 1987. It also applies to most rental agreements involving public housing or federal subsidized or regulated housing, subject to some exceptions.

Under the Act, a landlord has the responsibility to maintain the premises in a fit and habitable condition. Under section 34-18-22 of the Act, a landlord must comply with applicable building and housing codes, make necessary repairs to keep the premises in a fit and habitable condition, supply running hot water, maintain common areas in a clean and safe condition, and maintain all facilities and appliances supplied by the landlord in good and safe working order, among other duties. These standards were adopted in conformity with the Uniform Residential Landlord Tenant Act (URLTA).

One state’s supreme court recently decided a case involving the potential liability of a landlord after a tenant fell through an old railing. Evidently, the plaintiff rented a home from the defendants, which included a side porch with an old and poorly maintained railing. The wind pushed the plaintiff onto the railing, which gave way, causing her to fall off the porch and fracture her ankle. Under URLTA, handrails must be “firmly fastened,” maintained in good condition, and able to support “normally imposed loads.” However, the court found that the URLTA did not abrogate the common-law standard for landlord liability. Instead, it stated the URLTA was only meant to supplement common law, not to replace it. Under common law, the landlord did not have a duty apart from warning tenants of any dangerous latent conditions that exist on the property. Because the tenant knew of the railing’s condition, the landlord was not liable.

Contact a Rhode Island Lawyer

At the law firm of Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC, we handle all types of Rhode Island real estate and property law issues, including Rhode Island personal injury cases involving rental properties. Landlords have a duty to tenants under Rhode Island law that requires they take care of the known problems and do not unnecessarily put their tenants in danger. Our experienced attorneys represent both landlords and tenants in all types of Rhode Island landlord-tenant disputes. We build close relationships with our clients and will provide you with an honest assessment of your claim. To set up an appointment, call us at 401-300-4055 or fill out our online form.

A recent Rhode Island appellate opinion discusses the liability of a landowner for injuries that the plaintiff sustained as a result of an allegedly faulty staircase. The plaintiff resided at a property that the defendant owned, where the defendant also resided. On the evening of the accident, the plaintiff was talking on her cell phone as she climbed a wooden staircase that led to the front porch area of the modular home in which she lived. She testified that as she reached the top of the stairs, she felt herself falling through the stairs, and her feet eventually hit the ground. She alleged in her complaint that she experienced numerous injuries as a result of the fall. The plaintiff’s complaint asserted a cause of action for negligence against the defendant, stating that he had breached his duty to maintain the property in a reasonable and safe manner.

The plaintiff also testified that she did not notice anything unusual about the stairs and that she had used the same stairway to exit her home earlier that evening. The plaintiff secured a new attorney, who amended her original complaint to include a claim for res ipsa loquitur, which is a legal theory providing that the occurrence of a particular accident implies the existence of negligence. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, stating that the defective condition had not existed on the property for a long enough period of time for the defendant to have reasonable notice or actual notice of its existence.

The lower court concluded that the plaintiff failed to offer any evidence showing that the defendant had acted negligently. The lower court entered judgment in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed. On review, the appellate court agreed with the lower court, finding that there was no evidence in the record showing that a defect in the step existed for a sufficient period of time for the defendant to take notice. The appellate court also noted that the plaintiff even testified that no other stairs in the staircase appeared to be defective and that she had used the staircase earlier that evening.

If you have suffered injuries as a result of a property owner’s failure to keep his or her premises in good working condition, you can file a negligence action against him or her to recover compensation for your injuries. Understanding the scope of liability and whom to name in the lawsuit can be confusing, particularly if you are also coping with serious injuries and major disruptions to your life. The dedicated personal injury attorneys at Bilodeau Capalbo are standing by to help you assert the full extent of your legal rights. To schedule your free consultation, call us now at 401-300-4055 or contact us online.

More Blog Posts Mistakes Dads Make During Divorce How to Prepare for High-Asset Divorce How to Create a Summer Custody Schedule

A recent appellate opinion illustrates this issue. The plaintiff alleged that he slipped and fell on a patch of black ice in a parking lot near his apartment building, which the defendant owned. He alleged that as a result of the fall, he experienced a torn rotator cuff that required surgery and that he was not able to work for many months as a result.

The plaintiff filed a personal injury action against the defendant, alleging that the defendant was negligent in how it maintained the premises. In an amended complaint, the plaintiff also alleged that the defendant had violated multiple provisions of the Landlord Tenant Act.

The matter proceeded to trial. At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case, the defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law, pursuant to Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 50, arguing that the plaintiff failed to offer evidence that the defendant had notice that there was black ice. The trial court reserved its decision on the motion, and the defendant renewed the motion at the conclusion of its presentation of evidence. The lower court granted the motion and entered a judgment in the defendant’s favor. The plaintiff appealed.

On review, the appellate court first stated the applicable standard of care. Under Rhode Island law, a property owner has a duty to use reasonable care to ensure the safety of persons who are reasonably expected to use the premises. This includes a duty to protect against dangerous conditions of which they are aware, or which through a reasonable exercise of diligence they should have discovered. Additionally, the Rhode Island Legislature has imposed a higher duty of care for landlords, requiring them to keep all common areas safe and clean.

Applied to the facts in the record, the appellate court found that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty to keep the parking lot, which was a common area, in a safe condition. The plaintiff had testified at trial that the defendant routinely plowed snow onto a grassy area above the parking lot. The appellate court concluded that this conduct created a dangerous condition because the snow and ice would melt and run down to the parking lot area. When temperatures dipped below freezing, the water accumulated in the parking lot would freeze, creating black ice. As a result, the appellate court concluded that there was enough evidence to send the case to the jury. It vacated the lower court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

If you’ve been injured as a result of a serious accident, the seasoned Rhode Island personal injury attorneys at Bilodeau Capalbo are prepared to help you assert your right to financial compensation. We have assisted many victims in the area, and we understand how stressful, chaotic, and confusing this time is for you and your loved ones. To schedule your free consultation, call us now at 401-300-4055 or contact us online.

More Blog Posts Mistakes Dads Make During Divorce How to Prepare for High-Asset Divorce How to Create a Summer Custody Schedule

The plaintiff and a friend were target shooting on property owned by the defendants when a .45-caliber handgun accidentally discharged, shooting the plaintiff in the stomach. The plaintiff filed a complaint against the owners of the property, alleging that the owners knowingly allowed the friend to shoot guns on the property and that the plaintiff was invited by the friend to the property. It also alleged that the friend was negligent in handling the firearm and in shooting the plaintiff in the stomach. The plaintiff asserted multiple causes of action against the property owners and the friend.

In response to the complaint, the property owner defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that they did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care because they were not present during the activity or aware that it was taking place. They also cited case law precedent holding that there is no common law duty to control a third party’s conduct in premises liability situations. The plaintiff refuted this argument, stating that the property owner defendants leased a portion of the property to the friend, who kept livestock, a trailer, and various property items at the location, and that they allowed the friend and his acquaintances to use the area as a shooting gallery. In support of this argument, the plaintiff included his own deposition testimony in addition to the friend’s testimony and another individual’s testimony who was also present during the accident.

The trial court concluded that since there was no evidence to suggest that the property owners were present at the time of the accident, they could not be held to owe the plaintiff a duty of care to protect him from the friend’s conduct. As a result, the lower court granted the defendant property owner’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff appealed.

On review, the appellate court upheld the lower court’s conclusion that the property owners did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care. In reaching this decision, the court noted that at the time the plaintiff and the friend entered the property, a dangerous condition on the property did not exist. Instead, the dangerous condition was the activity of shooting, which the plaintiff and the friend created voluntarily.

If you have been injured as a result of another individual’s negligence, you may be entitled to compensation. Understanding the scope of your rights and ensuring that you name the appropriate persons in your lawsuit can be a critical step in securing the maximum amount of compensation that you deserve. At Bilodeau and Capalbo, our compassionate and experienced personal injury lawyers have assisted numerous Rhode Island residents with navigating the legal process. To schedule your free consultation, call us now at 401-300-4055 or contact us online.

More Blog Posts Mistakes Dads Make During Divorce How to Prepare for High-Asset Divorce How to Create a Summer Custody Schedule