Creates a cause of action for the intentional or negligent injury or death of a pet.
Summary
H5926 would amend Rhode Island’s animal cruelty laws to create a new civil cause of action when a pet is seriously injured or killed by another person’s unlawful, intentional, or negligent conduct. The bill applies only to domesticated dogs and cats normally kept in or near the household, and for negligent or intentional acts it limits coverage to incidents occurring on the owner’s or caretaker’s property, or while the pet is under the owner’s or caretaker’s control and supervision.
The measure sets a framework for noneconomic damages in these cases. It authorizes a trier of fact to award up to $7,500 in noneconomic damages, while also establishing minimum recoveries of $500 for serious injury and $750 for death or injury resulting in death. It defines serious injury as broken bones or permanently disfiguring lacerations requiring stitches or sutures, allows recovery for loss of companionship and affection, and limits recovery to a single award when there are multiple owners. It also preserves other related claims, such as intentional infliction of emotional distress, and excludes not-for-profit entities and governmental agencies acting on behalf of public health or animal welfare from liability under this section.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would add a new section to chapter 4-1 of the Rhode Island General Laws and expand civil remedies available to pet owners. It would not create criminal penalties; instead, it would establish statutory damages for certain negligent or intentional injuries or deaths of pets, thereby affecting tort liability, animal-related litigation, and the measure of damages recoverable by owners of dogs and cats. The bill would also carve out exceptions for public-health and animal-welfare actors, limiting its reach in those contexts.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears to be supportive of recognizing pets as more than ordinary property for purposes of civil recovery. The bill’s structure suggests an intent to provide a modest but meaningful remedy for owners who suffer the loss or serious injury of a companion animal. No contrary positions are documented in the available record.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are the scope and limits of liability. The bill restricts coverage to dogs and cats, excludes incidents involving governmental and nonprofit animal-welfare actors, and limits negligent or intentional claims to injuries occurring on the owner’s or caretaker’s property or while the pet is under their supervision. Another likely issue is the damages cap and minimums, which may be viewed as either too low to reflect the emotional harm of losing a pet or too expansive for a civil remedy involving animals. The bill also distinguishes between negligence-based claims and other causes of action, which could prompt debate over how broadly courts should interpret related emotional-distress claims.