Supreme Court
No. 2016-154-Appeal.
(PC 11-586)
James Costantino :
v. :
Ford Motor Company et al. :
ORDER
The plaintiff, James Costantino, appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court granting
summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Ford Motor Company and Tasca Automotive Group.
This appeal came before the Court for oral argument on November 1, 2017, pursuant to an order
directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be
summarily decided. After a close review of the record and careful consideration of the parties’
arguments (both written and oral), we are satisfied that cause has not been shown and that the
appeal may be decided at this time. For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the judgment of the
Superior Court.
On February 1, 2011, plaintiff filed a pro se complaint alleging that defendants were liable
for the injuries that he allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident on February 7, 2008. The
plaintiff alleged that defendants “defectively designed and/or manufactured” the airbags in his 2006
Ford F-150 pickup truck and that, as a result, the airbags failed to deploy at the time of the accident;
he further alleged that this purported failure caused him to suffer “a severe head injury.”
The defendants twice moved for summary judgment. On July 29, 2013, a justice of the
Superior Court denied without prejudice defendants’ first joint motion for summary judgment on
the basis of the justice’s view that defendants’ expert had failed to include certain material
-1-
information in the affidavit setting forth his expert opinion, which affidavit had been submitted in
support of defendants’ motion. After expressly acknowledging plaintiff’s pro se status, the hearing
justice explained to plaintiff the nature of his burden in litigation of this sort: “[I]n order to pursue
this case you need to have evidence to support your case.” He further advised plaintiff that he would
need “an expert [witness] to testify on [his] behalf” as well as evidence to rebut the opinion of
defendants’ expert. Subsequent to this hearing, plaintiff indicated that he had retained an expert
witness, one Stephen Benanti.
On December 2, 2015, defendants again jointly moved for summary judgment, and a
hearing was conducted as to that motion on April 12, 2016 before a different justice of the Superior
Court. In ruling on the December 2 motion, the hearing justice noted that “plaintiff ha[d] not
presented any evidence that the air bags were defective” so as to rebut the new affidavit of
defendants’ expert, which stated that plaintiff’s pickup truck had “performed properly in the subject
accident and d[id] not exhibit any design or manufacturing defects.” The plaintiff averred at the
April 12 hearing that his expert, Mr. Benanti, was not able to submit rebuttal evidence with respect
to the affidavit of defendants’ expert because Ford had “refused to answer [certain] questions.” The
plaintiff contended that Mr. Benanti would need those questions to be answered so as to be able to
prepare his own expert opinion. 1 The hearing justice noted that, despite the fact that he had been
provided with “more than sufficient time” within which to conduct discovery, plaintiff had never
moved to compel defendants to respond to any questions. 2 Citing the lack of evidence supporting
1
The record reflects that the “questions” referred to by plaintiff had been filed by plaintiff in
the Superior Court on March 7, 2016 in a document entitled “Response.”
2
Before this Court, plaintiff references Rule 56(f) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil
Procedure and argues that the hearing justice should have granted him a continuance so that he
might have conducted additional discovery. However, at the April 12, 2016 summary judgment
hearing, plaintiff neither moved for a continuance nor submitted an affidavit, as required by Rule
-2-
plaintiff’s claims, the hearing justice concluded that plaintiff had not demonstrated the existence of
a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the airbags were defective and that, therefore,
defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, he granted defendants’ joint
motion for summary judgment.
It is well established that this Court reviews the grant of a motion for summary judgment in
a de novo manner, applying the same standards and rules as did the hearing justice. Beauregard v.
Gouin, 66 A.3d 489, 493 (R.I. 2013). It is also a basic principle that “[t]he party opposing summary
judgment has a duty to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists and may not rest solely
upon allegations and denials in the pleadings.” CACH, LLC v. Potter, 154 A.3d 939, 943 (R.I. 2017)
(internal quotation marks omitted). We will affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment
“only if, after reviewing the admissible evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party,
we conclude that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Great American E & S Insurance Co. v. End Zone Pub & Grill of
Narragansett, Inc., 45 A.3d 571, 574 (R.I. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).
After a thorough review of the record, it is clear that the plaintiff failed to submit competent
evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the airbags in his truck
were defective. See Moura v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 90 A.3d 852, 856
(R.I. 2014). We are aware that the plaintiff has been proceeding pro se; however, “[e]ven if a
litigant is acting pro se, he or she is expected to familiarize himself or herself with the law as well
as the rules of procedure.” CACH, LLC, 154 A.3d at 942 n.3 (internal quotation marks omitted). In
the instant case, the plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit from his expert, Mr. Benanti, to rebut the
56(f), explaining why he was unable to present evidence supporting his opposition to defendants’
joint motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, plaintiff’s argument in regard to Rule 56(f) is not
properly before us on appeal.
-3-
opinion of the defendants’ expert that the airbags in the truck functioned properly on the day of the
accident and that their failure to deploy was not due to any defect in the airbags. Moreover, the
plaintiff failed to present any other competent evidence that would create a genuine issue of
material fact as to whether the airbags were defective. Accordingly, it is our view that the hearing
justice did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Superior Court’s grant of summary judgment. The
record may be returned to that tribunal.
Entered as an Order of this Court this 22nd day of February, 2018.
By Order,
__________/s/_____________
Clerk
-4-
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS
SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE
ORDER COVER SHEET
Title of Case James Costantino v. Ford Motor Company et al.
No. 2016-154-Appeal.
Case Number
(PC-11-586)
Date Order Filed
February 22, 2018
Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and
Justices
Indeglia, JJ.
Source of Appeal Providence County Superior Court
Judicial Officer From Lower Court Associate Justice Richard A. Licht
For Plaintiff:
James Costantino, Pro Se
Attorney(s) on Appeal For Defendants:
Adam A. Larson, Esq.
Christopher Howe, Esq.
SU-CMS-02B (revised November 2016)