Adds the doctrine of assumption of risk to the current comparative negligence statute.
Summary
H5910 amends Rhode Island’s comparative negligence statute governing personal injury, wrongful death, and property damage actions. Under current law, a plaintiff’s lack of due care does not bar recovery, but any damages are reduced in proportion to that person’s share of fault. This bill adds explicit language stating that assumption of risk, along with the existing “open and obvious” doctrine, will not bar recovery either; instead, those circumstances are to be treated as part of the fault allocation used to diminish damages.
In practical terms, the bill would make clear that a person injured by a hazard cannot be completely denied recovery solely because they knew of the risk or encountered an obvious danger. Rather, the finder of fact would assess the injured party’s comparative fault and reduce damages accordingly. The measure applies to personal injury, wrongful death, and property damage claims and would take effect immediately upon passage.
Impact
The bill would revise Rhode Island General Laws § 9-20-4, the state’s comparative negligence provision, by expressly incorporating assumption of risk into the comparative fault framework. It would affect civil litigation involving negligence claims by limiting the use of assumption of risk as a complete defense and directing courts and juries to apportion damages instead. The change would primarily impact plaintiffs, defendants, insurers, and the courts in tort cases involving injuries, death, or property damage.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript, recorded votes, or formal opposition, so there is no documented debate to indicate strong support or resistance. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears to be a technical but substantive tort-law clarification aimed at aligning assumption of risk with comparative negligence principles. The overall tone of the proposal is neutral and procedural rather than controversial in the materials provided.
Contention
The main point of contention, if raised, would likely be whether assumption of risk should remain a separate, potentially complete defense or be folded into comparative fault and used only to reduce damages. That issue matters to defendants and insurers, who may prefer broader defenses, versus plaintiffs and consumer advocates, who may favor preserving recovery even when a risk was known or obvious. The bill also touches on the long-standing “open and obvious” doctrine, which could be another area of dispute in premises-liability and negligence cases.