Feeding America

Today is the day!

Help us provide healthy meals to those in need with a donation to local food banks. Together we can “Set the Table” for a hunger-free America!

Click here to donate.

Feeding America


Negligence & Requirement of Damages: Rhode Island Law Updates By Attorney Ronald J. Resmini

In this update of Rhode Island Practice Tort Law and Personal Injury Practice (Vol. 1), Chapter 2 , Negligence, Section 82, I update my previous publication from 1990.

*82. The Requirement of Damages

The possibility of contracting cancer resulting from mere exposure to a carcinogen (see asbestos/mesothelioma), although potentially increasing one’s risk of developing cancer, is too tenuous to be a viable cause of action. (Kelley v. Cowessett Hills Assocciates, 768 A2d 425 (RI 2000). Thus, in cases alleging negligent exposure to asbestos, a plaintiff cannot, as a matter of law, establish a prima facie case of negligence absent any physical manifestation of asbestos-related illness or disease. Id
The Ronald J Resmini Law Offices in Providence and Seekonk Massachusetts, has represented clients who were unknowingly exposed to asbestos in the workplace. If you feel that this may apply to you, please give us a call for a no-obligation, initial consultation.

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.

Written By: Ronald J. Resmini

Last Updated : Tuesday, September 1, 2020