This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Tantimonico, Jr. (P), and McPhillips, Jr. (P), were riding motorcycles on a piece of undeveloped property owned by D. Ps collided head-on with each other. Both suffered severe injuries that required extensive hospitalization. Ps sued D for negligence and D moved for summary judgment. At the conclusion of the hearing the trial justice stated that he could find no legal duty that would support the actions against D and, that without a legal duty, no material facts were to be found because the question of law was dispositive of the entire matters. D’s motion was granted and Ps appealed. Ps argue that in prior case law the court abolished the common-law distinctions between the duties owed to licensees, invitees, and trespassers and substituted the tort test of reasonableness. Thus, D owed them a duty of care to protect them from dangerous conditions on its property.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.