## Facts

- Michael T. Cain and two friends walked on the Newport Cliff Walk at about 2:00 a.m. on August 6, 1991.
- The Cliff Walk included a segment passing through Salve Regina University’s campus.
- The Cliff Walk was posted as closed between 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., and Cain was there during the closed hours.
- Cain stepped off the paved walk onto a grassy area on the ocean side.
- The ground gave way, and Cain fell from the cliff and died.
- Cain’s parents filed a wrongful-death negligence action alleging defendants failed to inspect, maintain, repair, and safeguard the Cliff Walk.

## Issues

1. Whether Cain’s presence on the Cliff Walk during posted closed hours made him a trespasser, limiting defendants’ duty of care.
2. Whether the evidence could support a finding that defendants engaged in willful, wanton, or reckless conduct (including reckless indifference) toward Cain’s safety.
3. Whether summary judgment was proper where plaintiffs’ proof showed, at most, negligent maintenance or warnings rather than heightened misconduct.

## Decision

- The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the City of Newport, the State of Rhode Island, and Salve Regina University.
- The court held Cain was a trespasser because he was on the Cliff Walk during posted closed hours.
- Under the trespasser standard, defendants owed only a duty to refrain from willful, wanton, or reckless conduct.
- Viewing the record in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, no reasonable jury could find defendants’ conduct met that heightened level of culpability.
- Allegations about inadequate inspection, maintenance, barriers, or warnings sounded in ordinary negligence and were insufficient as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- A person present on property without permission during posted closed hours may be treated as a trespasser.
- As to trespassers, landowners generally owe no duty of ordinary care; liability requires willful, wanton, or reckless misconduct.
- “Reckless indifference” for this purpose requires a conscious disregard of a known serious danger and is materially more blameworthy than negligence.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when, even with all reasonable inferences for the nonmovant, the evidence cannot establish the level of culpability required by the governing duty standard.

## Conclusion

Because Cain was a trespasser on a publicly posted closed walkway and the evidence did not permit a finding of willful, wanton, or reckless conduct by any defendant, the Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment denying wrongful-death recovery.


Cain v. Johnson, 755 A.2d 156 (R.I. 2000)