R.I. Gen. Laws
Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 31-13-3 (2026)

Devices on local highways

✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The traffic authority of any city or town may place and maintain traffic control signals, signs, markings, and other safety devices upon the highways under their jurisdiction as they may deem necessary to indicate and carry out the provisions of chapters 12 — 27 of this title, or local traffic ordinances or to regulate, warn or guide traffic, provided the signals, signs, markings, and devices conform to the regulations and specifications established by the state traffic commission in accordance with this chapter.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1976–2011 · leading case: Toegemann v. City of Providence., 21 A.3d 384 (R.I. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Toegemann v. City of Providence., 21 A.3d 384 (R.I. 2011). · cites it 7× “*387 III Discussion On appeal, plaintiff argues that the hearing justice wrongfully applied the public-duty doctrine in granting summary judgment, in light of what plaintiff contends are clear statutory guidelines for traffic design contained in G.L.1956 § 31-13-3. The plaintiff…”
Ferreira v. Strack, 636 A.2d 682 (R.I. 1994). “1956 (1982 Reenactment) § 31-13-2(a) (authorizing state traffic commission to place and maintain traffic-control devices upon state highways to “regulate, warn, or guide traffic”); § 31-13-3 (authorizing cities and towns to place and maintain traffic-control devices upon local…”
Polaski v. O'REILLY, 559 A.2d 646 (R.I. 1989). “It must be borne in mind that the foregoing right of action and statutory liability relates to the keeping of highways in repair. These provisions do not deal with the placement of traffic-control signals and devices.”
Marran v. State, 672 A.2d 875 (R.I. 1996). · cites it 2× “Section 31-13-3. However, these signs and safety devices must conform to the regulations and specifications established by the state traffic commission.”
State v. Piscopio, 366 A.2d 146 (R.I. 1976). “It urges, however, that the officer’s testimony that the device in fact existed triggered the presumption that public officials had properly discharged their duties of placing and maintaining authorized devices (§31-13-2(a) and '§31-13-3, as amended by P. L. 1968, ch. 113, §2)…”
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.