R.I. Gen. Laws
Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 32-6-2 (2026)

Definitions

✓ 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

As used in this chapter:

(1) “Charge” means the admission price or fee asked in return for invitation or permission to enter or go upon the land;

(2) “Land” means land, roads, water, watercourses, private ways and buildings, structures, and machinery or equipment when attached to the realty;

(3) “Owner” means the private-owner possessor of a fee interest, or tenant, lessee, occupant, or person in control of the premises, including the state and municipalities;

(4) “Recreational purposes” includes, but is not limited to, any of the following, or any combination thereof: hunting, fishing, swimming, boating, camping, picnicking, hiking, horseback riding, bicycling, pleasure driving, nature study, water skiing, water sports, viewing or enjoying historical, archaeological, scenic, or scientific sites, and all other recreational purposes contemplated by this chapter; and

(5) “User” means any person using land for recreational purposes.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2000–2021 · 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 8× “]" Section 32-6-2(1) (emphasis added). It is undisputed that plaintiffs paid an admission fee to visit The Breakers mansion and grounds; it is clear that the fee did not include "admission" to the Cliff Walk.”
Hanley v. State, 837 A.2d 707 (R.I. 2003). · cites it 9× “]” Section 32-6-2(1). “For the charge to constitute an admission fee it must be established that it is imposed in return for recreational use of the land.”
Pereira v. Fitzgerald, 21 A.3d 369 (R.I. 2011). · cites it 8× “Section 32-6-2 of the Recreational Use Statute provides, in pertinent part: "Definitions.”
Smiler v. Napolitano, 911 A.2d 1035 (R.I. 2006). · cites it 2× “” Section 32-6-2(3), as amended by P.L. 1996, ch.”
Dawn K. Roy v. State, 139 A.3d 480 (R.I. 2016). · cites it 2× “In 1996, the General Assembly amended the definition of "owner" in G.L. 1956 § 32-6-2(3) to include the state and municipalities.”
Lacey v. Reitsma, 899 A.2d 455 (R.I. 2006). · cites it 2× “” Section 32-6-2(3), as amended by P.L.1996, ch.”
Kathleen Carlson v. Town of South Kingstown, 111 A.3d 819 (R.I. 2015). · cites it 3× “” Section 32-6-2(1). With respect to this issue, we do not write on a clean slate because in the past we have addressed what the term “charge” means in the context of the RUS.”
Tara J. Cancel v. City of Providence, 187 A.3d 347 (R.I. 2018). “capacity as Treasurer for the City of Providence; Joseph Salem, in his capacity as Director of Roger Williams Park Services; Russel Knight, in his capacity as Director of Providence Public Works; Sal Solomon, in his capacity as Superintendent of the Highway Division for the City…”
Kimberly Ann Sallee v. Matthew R. Stewart, 827 N.W.2d 128 (Iowa 2013). “Rev.Stat. § 41.510(4) (2011); Okla. Stat. tit.”
Cain v. Johnson, 755 A.2d 156 (R.I. 2000). · cites it 2× “The plaintiffs argue that even though § 32-6-2 has been amended to include the state and municipalities as "owners," the statute in force at the time of the accident did not include such entities.”
Morales v. Town of Johnston, 895 A.2d 721 (R.I. 2006). “2003) (for purposes of immunity from suit for injuries sustained on land made available for recreational use, the state and its municipalities are considered owners pursuant to § 32-6-2(3)). 10 . The public duty doctrine is applicable to governmental functions, except: “(1) when…”
Cruz v. City of Providence, 908 A.2d 405 (R.I. 2006). “General Laws 1956 § 32-6-2 of the Recreational Use Statute provides, in pertinent part: "Definitions.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
R.I. Gen. Laws § 32-6-2(1): 3 cases
Berman v. Sitrin, 991 A.2d 1038 (R.I. 2010). “]" Section 32-6-2(1) (emphasis added). It is undisputed that plaintiffs paid an admission fee to visit The Breakers mansion and grounds; it is clear that the fee did not include "admission" to the Cliff Walk.”
Hanley v. State, 837 A.2d 707 (R.I. 2003). “]” Section 32-6-2(1). “For the charge to constitute an admission fee it must be established that it is imposed in return for recreational use of the land.”
Kathleen Carlson v. Town of South Kingstown, 111 A.3d 819 (R.I. 2015). “” Section 32-6-2(1). With respect to this issue, we do not write on a clean slate because in the past we have addressed what the term “charge” means in the context of the RUS.”
R.I. Gen. Laws § 32-6-2(3): 10 cases
Berman v. Sitrin, 991 A.2d 1038 (R.I. 2010). “]" Section 32-6-2(1) (emphasis added). It is undisputed that plaintiffs paid an admission fee to visit The Breakers mansion and grounds; it is clear that the fee did not include "admission" to the Cliff Walk.”
Smiler v. Napolitano, 911 A.2d 1035 (R.I. 2006). “” Section 32-6-2(3), as amended by P.L. 1996, ch.”
Dawn K. Roy v. State, 139 A.3d 480 (R.I. 2016). “In 1996, the General Assembly amended the definition of "owner" in G.L. 1956 § 32-6-2(3) to include the state and municipalities.”
Hanley v. State, 837 A.2d 707 (R.I. 2003). “]” Section 32-6-2(1). “For the charge to constitute an admission fee it must be established that it is imposed in return for recreational use of the land.”
Lacey v. Reitsma, 899 A.2d 455 (R.I. 2006). “” Section 32-6-2(3), as amended by P.L.1996, ch.”
R.I. Gen. Laws § 32-6-2(4): 4 cases
Hanley v. State, 837 A.2d 707 (R.I. 2003). “]” Section 32-6-2(1). “For the charge to constitute an admission fee it must be established that it is imposed in return for recreational use of the land.”
Pereira v. Fitzgerald, 21 A.3d 369 (R.I. 2011). “Section 32-6-2 of the Recreational Use Statute provides, in pertinent part: "Definitions.”
Tara J. Cancel v. City of Providence, 187 A.3d 347 (R.I. 2018). “capacity as Treasurer for the City of Providence; Joseph Salem, in his capacity as Director of Roger Williams Park Services; Russel Knight, in his capacity as Director of Providence Public Works; Sal Solomon, in his capacity as Superintendent of the Highway Division for the City…”
Kimberly Ann Sallee v. Matthew R. Stewart, 827 N.W.2d 128 (Iowa 2013). “Rev.Stat. § 41.510(4) (2011); Okla. Stat. tit.”
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.