Skip to main content
Donald Arthur Woodbine
Avvo
Pro

Donald Woodbine’s Legal Cases

5 total

  • Vito A. Polaski, Jr. v. Terence J. O'Reilly et al.

    Practice Area:
    Personal Injury
    Date:
    Jun 06, 1989
    Outcome:
    The court denied and dismissed the injured person's appeal and affirmed the summary judgment entered in the superior court.
    Description:
    I have tried and settled hundreds of cases during my 30 years in the legal field. For your review, I will list just a few cases which have been decided in an appellate court. In this case, I represented the defendant (Thomas Eagan, the treasurer of the city of Warwick). Plaintiff injured person sought review of a judgment of the Superior Court, Kent County (Rhode Island), which granted summary judgment for defendant city treasurer in the plaintiff's action against the city for negligence that caused an automobile collision at an intersection with defendants, a vehicle driver and owner. Plaintiff contended the that city had acted negligently in failing to maintain a stop sign at the intersection that had been mutilated beyond recognition and had been obstructed from view by trees, brush, and bushes. The court found that the placing of traffic-control signals was a discretionary act for which no statutory duty or liability had been imposed on a city. It concluded that not a shred of evidence existed on the record that indicated that plaintiff could have been foreseen as a specific, identifiable victim of the city's negligence.
  • Grande v. Almac's, Inc.

    Practice Area:
    Personal Injury
    Date:
    Apr 20, 1993
    Outcome:
    The court denied and dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial court's judgment.
    Description:
    I have tried and settled hundreds of cases during my 30 years in the legal field. For your review, I will list just a few cases which have been decided in an appellate court. In this case, I represented the defendant, Almac's, Inc. Plaintiff injury victim appealed from an order of the Superior Court, Providence County (Rhode Island) granting defendant property owner's motion for summary judgment in the victim's personal injury action against the owner and defendant store. The trial court also granted the store's motion to dismiss the amended complaint on the ground that it was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The victim tripped and fell on the sidewalk leading into the store. The victim filed an action against the store and later amended her complaint to include the owner as a defendant. The owner filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that it had no duty to maintain the sidewalk. The store filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the amended complaint was barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court granted defendants' motions, and on appeal, the court affirmed. The court held that the victim failed to establish specific facts demonstrating that the owner caused the defect in the sidewalk, which allegedly caused her to trip and fall. Because plaintiff failed to demonstrate that a factual dispute existed, the owner was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court further held that the victim's amended complaint did not relate back to the filing of the original complaint pursuant to R.I. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 15(c) so as to avoid dismissal. The victim failed prove that there was a mistake in not naming the owner in her original action or that the owner knew or should have know that, but for the mistake, it would have been named as a defendant in the action.
  • Pantalone v. Advanced Energy Delivery Sys.

    Practice Area:
    Litigation
    Date:
    Jun 16, 1997
    Outcome:
    The court denied and dismissed the company's appeal of the denial of its motion for a directed verdict and the owners' appeal of the grant of the company's motion for a new trial. The court affirmed the grant of the motion for a new trial and remanded.
    Description:
    I have tried and settled hundreds of cases during my 30 years in the legal field. For your review, I will list just a few cases which have been decided in an appellate court. In this case, I represented the plaintiff. Defendant repair company sought review of a decision from the Superior Court of Providence County (Rhode Island), which denied the company's motion for a directed verdict. Plaintiff property owners appealed the grant of the company's motion for a new trial in their negligence action. The company repaired defendant restaurant's ice machine and loaned it an extension cord for the ice machine. The overheating of the cords started a fire and damaged the owners' property. The owners brought a negligence action. The trial court denied the company's motion for a directed verdict. The jury found that the restaurant was 90 percent negligent and the company was 10 percent. The trial court granted the company's motion for a new trial. On appeal, the court stated that the denial of the motion for a directed verdict was proper because the facts did not justify a holding as a matter of law that the restaurant's negligence in using the extension cord constituted an intervening cause and that the company's negligence had ceased to be the concurrent proximate cause of the injury. The court found that the trial court did not err in its grant of the motion for a new trial.
  • Kay v. Menard

    Practice Area:
    Personal Injury
    Date:
    Jun 27, 2000
    Outcome:
    The court upheld the judgment, because the trial court properly admitted evidence of defendant's intoxication, and properly failed to instruct the jury that passengers were not prohibited by law from using freight elevators.
    Description:
    I have tried and settled hundreds of cases during my 30 years in the legal field. For your review, I will list just a few cases which have been decided in an appellate court. In this case, I represented the plaintiff. Defendant building owner appealed a jury award from the Superior Court, Providence County (Rhode Island) for plaintiff in plaintiff's action alleging defendant's negligence caused defendant to fall four floors down an open elevator shaft in defendant's building. Plaintiff sued defendant for negligence, alleging defendant's failure to repair an elevator in a building owned by defendant caused plaintiff to fall four stories down the elevator shaft. A jury awarded plaintiff damages, and defendant appealed. Defendant argued the trial court erred in allowing evidence of defendant's intoxication at the time of the accident and his alcoholism in the time prior to the accident, and that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that passengers were not prohibited by law from using freight elevators. The court held the trial court properly admitted evidence of defendant's intoxication and alcoholism. It was important for the jury to determine whether the defendant's almost constant state of inebriation was the real cause for his ignoring and/or inaction in failing to correct the dangerous mechanical interlock defect in the fourth-floor hallway door leading to the elevator in his building. The court held the trial court properly declined to instruct the jury on the freight elevator issue. At the time of the accident, the elevator was not being used as a freight elevator.
  • English v. Green

    Practice Area:
    Personal Injury
    Date:
    Dec 21, 2001
    Outcome:
    The appeal was denied and dismissed. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed.
    Description:
    I have tried and settled hundreds of cases during my 30 years in the legal field. For your review, I will list just a few cases which have been decided in an appellate court. In this case, I represented the plaintiff. Defendants, including a driver, appealed the grant of a new trial in favor of plaintiffs, two injured parties, after a jury verdict in the Superior Court for Providence County (Rhode Island). The jury failed to assign any degree of negligence to the driver for his contribution to an automobile accident. The appellate court held that the trial court's grant of a new trial after determining that the jury's apportionment of negligence was against the fair weight of the evidence failed to do substantial justice to the parties, and that the damage awards shocked the conscience of the court was not error. The trial court did not misconceive or overlook material evidence by finding that reasonable minds would agree that the driver was at least partly negligent. The trial court also did not err in concluding that the evidence did not support the jury's assessment of damages. The jury's award to one injured party was against the fair preponderance of the evidence in light of his pain and suffering and the restrictions that his injuries placed on his day-to-day activities. Similarly, reasonable minds could not have concluded that the other injured party was entitled to less than his medical expenses for a permanent injury. There was sufficient evidence suggesting that the trial court determined that the driver's negligence was a proximate cause of the accident, and that the injuries proximately resulted therefrom.