Caps damages at $100,000 in tort actions against Rhode Island, cities, towns, or fire districts, except for willful misconduct or extreme recklessness. It also exempts them from § 9-21-10.
Summary
H5911 amends Rhode Island’s Governmental Tort Liability law to impose a $100,000 cap on damages in tort actions against the state, its political subdivisions, cities, towns, and fire districts. The bill preserves exceptions for cases involving proprietary functions, and it states that claims involving willful and malicious conduct or extreme recklessness would not be subject to the damages cap.
The bill also provides that the State of Rhode Island would not be subject to the provisions of § 9-21-10, which appears to remove the state from a separate statutory damages-related rule. The measure would take effect immediately upon passage, meaning the changes would apply as soon as enacted.
Impact
If enacted, H5911 would narrow the potential financial exposure of Rhode Island public entities in tort litigation by setting a uniform damages ceiling of $100,000 for claims against the state, municipalities, and fire districts, while preserving uncapped liability in specified misconduct cases and proprietary-function situations. It would directly affect plaintiffs bringing negligence and other tort claims against government defendants, as well as the state, local governments, fire districts, and their insurers or risk-management systems.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, there is no documented public debate in the provided materials. The bill’s structure suggests a policy preference for limiting governmental liability and controlling public exposure to large tort awards, but the available record does not show whether that approach was broadly supported or opposed in committee.
Contention
The main points of contention likely concern the size of the damages cap and whether $100,000 adequately compensates injured plaintiffs when government negligence causes serious harm. Another likely issue is the scope of the exceptions: supporters may view the proprietary-function and willful/malicious or extreme-recklessness carveouts as necessary safeguards, while opponents may argue the bill still unduly shields public entities and reduces accountability. The exemption from § 9-21-10 may also draw scrutiny because it alters how governmental defendants are treated under existing civil procedure or damages rules.