R.I. Gen. Laws
Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 32-6-1 (2026)

Purpose of chapter

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The purpose of this chapter is to encourage owners of land to make land and water areas available to the public for recreational purposes by limiting their liability to persons entering thereon for those purposes.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1994–2022 · leading case: Berman v. Sitrin, 991 A.2d 1038 (R.I. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Berman v. Sitrin, 991 A.2d 1038 (R.I. 2010). · cites it 4× “See § 32-6-1. [6] To accomplish this salutary purpose, the General Assembly declared in pertinent part as follows: "[A]n owner of land who either directly or indirectly invites or permits without charge any person to use that property for recreational purposes does not thereby:…”
Cain v. Johnson, 755 A.2d 156 (R.I. 2000). · cites it 8× “In the event that it was determined that the defendants or any of them directly or indirectly invited or permitted the plaintiffs' decedent to use the subject property for recreational purposes, would the duty toward him differ in any respect from that owed to a trespasser? See…”
Dawn K. Roy, in her capacity as the Adm'x of the Est. of Brett A. Roy v. State, 139 A.3d 480 (R.I. 2016). · cites it 2× “” Section 32-6-1. In order to achieve this, “the [Recreational Use Statute] modifies the common law by treating users of public and private recreational properties as trespassers, thus greatly reducing the duty of care that owners owe to recreational users.”
Morales v. Town of Johnston, 895 A.2d 721 (R.I. 2006). · cites it 2× “” Section 32-6-1. (Emphasis added.) In Tantimonico v.”
Hanley v. State, 837 A.2d 707 (R.I. 2003). · cites it 2× “However, in 1996, the Legislature explicitly added the state and municipalities to that definition, and now defines an owner as: “the private owner possessor of a fee interest, or tenant, lessee, occupant, or person in control of the premises including the state and…”
Lonergan v. May, 53 S.W.3d 122 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “68, §§ 477-1 to -8 (West 1994); R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 32-6-1 to -7 (1994 & Supp.”
Smiler v. Napolitano, 911 A.2d 1035 (R.I. 2006). “See § 32-6-1. The Recreational Use Statute modifies the common law to change the legal duty that owners owe to users of recreational property.”
Bucki v. Hawkins, 914 A.2d 491 (R.I. 2007). “It would be both absurd and contrary to the Legislature’s stated intent to shield every landowner from liability for injuries that guests suffer while engaging in recreational activity on their property.”
Tantimonico v. Allendale Mut. Ins., 637 A.2d 1056 (R.I. 1994). “In general that statute provides that a landowner who either directly or indirectly invites or permits without charge any person to use the property for recreational purposes does not thereby confer upon such person the legal status of invitee or licensee to whom a duty of care…”
Pereira v. Fitzgerald, 21 A.3d 369 (R.I. 2011). “General Laws 1956 § 32-6-1. Section 32-6-2 of the Recreational Use Statute provides, in pertinent part: "Definitions.”
Flavia Linnea Borgo v. The Narragansett Elec. Co. d/b/a Nat'l Grid (R.I. 2022). · cites it 2× “]” See G.L. 1956 § 32-6-1. Although plaintiff is correct that we have previously stated that the RUS treats users of property open to the public for recreational use as trespassers, see, e.”
Michaela Symonds, by & through her mother & Nat. guardian, Rhonda Symonds v. City of Pawtucket (R.I. 2015). “2010) (Berman I) 4; see § 32-6-1. To accomplish this purpose, the RUS modifies the common law by treating users of public and private recreational properties as trespassers, thus greatly reducing the duty of care that owners owe to recreational users.”
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.