Background
Yohaira Galindez sued the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority after allegedly suffering shoulder and other injuries while riding a RIPTA bus in May 2016. Galindez testified that the driver was speeding and talking to a passenger when a gray vehicle crossed in front of the bus, forcing the driver to brake abruptly. The driver testified that he was traveling safely, was not talking to a passenger, and stopped safely after the gray vehicle cut him off.
After a 2023 trial, the jury returned a verdict for RIPTA. Galindez sought a new trial and appealed, asserting eleven errors involving evidentiary rulings, spoliation, RIPTA’s late amendment of its answer to include a sudden-emergency theory, dismissal of a juror, the court’s response to a jury question, the standard-of-care instruction, and denial of her new-trial motion.
The Court’s Holding
The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed. It held that Galindez’s medical records were properly used to impeach her testimony about prior shoulder problems. The records’ statements fell within the exception for statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment, and Galindez authenticated the records by confirming the physician and treatment date. When one record proved to belong to her twin sister, the trial justice promptly instructed the jury that it concerned a different person and must be disregarded, which sufficiently cured any prejudice.
Reviewing the challenged jury instructions de novo, the Court found no error in either the original spoliation instruction or the supplemental response to the jury’s question. The instructions correctly explained that destruction of the bus video could permit—but did not require—an inference that the footage would have favored Galindez, and that any such inference could be considered when deciding whether the driver was negligent. The Court also upheld the late pleading amendment because Galindez had known for years that RIPTA’s driver claimed another vehicle suddenly cut him off, leaving her unable to show substantial prejudice. Excusing a juror who needed to leave for family obligations likewise fell within the trial justice’s discretion, and Galindez’s belief that the juror was sympathetic did not establish prejudice.
Several claims were waived because they were inadequately developed or unsupported by record citations and legal authority. That included arguments concerning aggravation of preexisting conditions, prior consistent statements, and alleged violations of evidentiary rules. Galindez’s claim that RIPTA owed passengers a heightened common-carrier duty of care and that the jury should have been instructed accordingly was also unpreserved: despite the trial justice’s requests, counsel supplied no supporting authority at trial and did not raise the asserted legal error in the new-trial motion. Finally, the record contradicted Galindez’s contention that her new-trial motion was rejected on procedural grounds; the trial justice enlarged the filing time, considered the motion’s merits, and denied it substantively.
Key Takeaways
- A party’s confirmation that medical records concern treatment she received may satisfy Rhode Island’s relatively low authentication threshold, while statements made for diagnosis or treatment may fall within the applicable hearsay exception.
- A spoliation instruction may permit, without compelling, an adverse inference; the Supreme Court reviews challenged jury instructions, including supplemental instructions, de novo and in their full context.
- Late amendment of a pleading does not warrant reversal absent substantial prejudice, particularly when discovery gave the opposing party long-standing notice of the underlying theory.
- Arguments that lack meaningful legal analysis, record support, or proper presentation to the trial court may be waived on appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how preservation failures can narrow an appeal even when numerous alleged errors are listed. A contemporaneous request is not necessarily enough when counsel fails to provide requested legal support, and an asserted legal error in a jury-tried case must also be properly presented in the new-trial motion before being raised on appeal.
The opinion also clarifies that an adverse inference from missing evidence is permissive rather than conclusive. When jurors expressed confusion about that principle, the supplemental instruction properly connected the possible inference to the negligence determination without treating the missing video itself as proof of liability.