Exempts recovery claims for damages due to a town's neglect in maintaining highways or bridges from the provisions of chapter 31 of title 9 on governmental tort liability.
Summary
H5915 amends Rhode Island law governing actions against towns for injuries or property damage caused by defects in public highways, causeways, or bridges. Under current law, a person may recover damages from a town when the town had reasonable notice of the defect, or should have had notice through proper care and diligence, and the injury could have been prevented by reasonable maintenance.
The bill adds a new subsection stating that this cause of action is exempt from chapter 31 of title 9, which governs governmental tort liability. In practical terms, the measure would carve these highway- and bridge-maintenance claims out of the broader governmental tort framework, while leaving the underlying right to sue a town for negligent maintenance in place. The act would take effect immediately upon passage.
Impact
The bill would narrow the application of Rhode Island’s governmental tort liability provisions by excluding claims for damages arising from a town’s failure to maintain highways or bridges. This would affect municipalities and injured parties by preserving a specific statutory remedy against towns for roadway and bridge defects, potentially making such claims procedurally or substantively distinct from other tort claims against government entities.
Sentiment
No committee transcript or vote record is available, so there is no direct evidence of debate or recorded support/opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears targeted and technical rather than broadly controversial, focusing on a specific municipal liability issue.
Contention
The main point of contention, if any, would likely be the balance between allowing injured persons to recover for dangerous roadway or bridge conditions and limiting municipal exposure to tort claims. Municipalities may view the exemption as increasing liability and litigation risk, while potential claimants and their advocates would likely support the bill as preserving access to compensation for injuries caused by neglected infrastructure.