Legal Opinion · Dissent

D'AMICO v. Johnston Partners

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Decided January 31, 2005No. 2004-3-AppealPublished

1DissentGoldberg, Justice, joined by Justice Suttell

I respectfully dissent from the decision of the majority and do so for two reasons. First, I would remand this case to the trial justice with directions to decide the motion for summary judgment based on the defendant’s assertion that, in performing design and engineering services for Johnston Partners, it owed no duty of care to the plaintiff, an adjacent property owner. That issue was before the trial justice and he should have addressed it. In light of today’s decision, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on the question of whether a duty of care was owed to the plaintiff by…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Ferreira v. StrackSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1994
  2. Hennessey v. PyneSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1997
  3. Volpe v. Fleet National BankSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1998
  4. Guay v. DolanSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1996
  5. Carroll v. YeawSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 2004

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API