Ramos v. Granajo, 822 A.2d 936 (2003)
- Citation
- Ramos v. Granajo, 822 A.2d 936 (2003)
- Parent Document
- Ramos v. Granajo, 822 A.2d 936 (2003)
- Jurisdiction
- Rhode Island (state)
- Effective Date
- 2003-05-30
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2346425/ramos-v-granajo/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (15)
- Ramos v. Granajo, 822 A.2d 936 (2003)
- Ramos v. Granajo, 822 A.2d 936 (2003)
- Ramos v. Granajo, 822 A.2d 936 (2003)
- Ramos v. Granajo, 822 A.2d 936 (2003)
- Ramos v. Granajo, 822 A.2d 936 (2003)
- Ramos v. Granajo, 822 A.2d 936 (2003)
- Ramos v. Granajo, 822 A.2d 936 (2003)
- Ramos v. Granajo, 822 A.2d 936 (2003)
- Ramos v. Granajo, 822 A.2d 936 (2003)
- Ramos v. Granajo, 822 A.2d 936 (2003)
- Ramos v. Granajo, 822 A.2d 936 (2003)
- Ramos v. Granajo, 822 A.2d 936 (2003)
- Ramos v. Granajo, 822 A.2d 936 (2003)
- Ramos v. Granajo, 822 A.2d 936 (2003)
- Ramos v. Granajo, 822 A.2d 936 (2003)
Full Text
639 chars674 A.2d at 1225. The plaintiff failed to meet this burden, resting on an allegation that the construction of the apartment building made it “foreseeable [that] tenants moving in and out * * * would use the balcony for the purpose of which it was being used on this particular day * * Yet plaintiff offered no evidence that this was a common practice engaged in by tenants of this building. More importantly, plaintiff offered no evidence that the balcony was not properly maintained or that defendant had notice of any defect. This bare allegation created no question of fact about whether the balcony was properly maintained. Cf. Errico,