The several towns shall provide by ordinance in a manner and under such penalties
as they may deem expedient, for removing snow from the public highways so as to render
the public highways passable with teams, sleds, and sleighs; but nothing contained
in this chapter shall be so construed as to render any town or city liable for any
injury to person or property caused by snow or ice obstructing any or any part of
the highways therein, unless notice in writing of the existence of the particular
obstruction shall have been given to the surveyor of highways within whose district
the obstruction exists, at least twenty-four (24) hours before the injury was caused,
and the town or surveyor shall not thereupon within twenty-four (24) hours of notification
have commenced the removal of the obstruction, or caused any sidewalk which may have
been obstructed by ice to be rendered passable, by spreading ashes or other like substances
thereon. Whenever any highway is blocked up or encumbered with snow, the surveyor
shall cause so much thereof to be removed or trod down as to render the highway passable.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1970–2025 · leading case:
Barroso v. Pepin, 261 A.2d 277 (R.I. 1970).
Barroso v. Pepin, 261 A.2d 277 (R.I. 1970).
· cites it 6× “Section 24-5-14 provides, in substance, that “The several towns shall provide by ordinance in such manner and under such penalties as they may deem expedient, for removing snow from the public highways so as to render the same passable with teams, sleds and sleighs * * It is…”
Hareld v. Napolitano, 615 A.2d 1015 (R.I. 1992).
· cites it 6× “General Laws 1956 (1989 Reenactment) § 24-5-14 requires that the cities and towns provide for ice and snow removal from public highways and sidewalks.”
State v. Almonte, 644 A.2d 295 (R.I. 1994).
· cites it 2× “1956 (1989 Reenactment) § 24-5-14, this court reasoned that article 1, section 5, should not be interpreted to bar the Legislature from enacting laws that may limit a party from bringing a claim in the courts.”
Vigneau v. La Salle, 300 A.2d 477 (R.I. 1973).
· cites it 4× “1956 (1968 Reenactment) §24-5-14 and that the giving of such notice was a condition precedent to the bringing of such action.”
Sara Roman v. City of Providence, 333 A.3d 74 (R.I. 2025).
· cites it 4× “There, the city argued that it was not liable to plaintiff because the city had not been notified that snow and ice existed on the sidewalk pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 24-5-14, which it argued was a condition precedent.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.