If any dog kills, wounds, worries, or assists in killing, wounding or worrying, any
sheep, lamb, cattle, horse, hog, swine, fowl, or other domestic animal belonging to
or in the possession of any person, or assaults, bites, or otherwise injures any person
while traveling the highway or out of the enclosure of the owner or keeper of that
dog, the owner or keeper of the dog shall be liable to the person aggrieved, for all
damage sustained, to be recovered in a civil action, with costs of suit. If afterwards
any such damage is done by that dog, the owner or keeper of the dog shall pay to the
party aggrieved double the damage, to be recovered in the manner set forth and an
order shall be made by the court before whom that second recovery is made, for killing
the dog. The order shall be executed by the officer charged with the execution of
the order, and it shall not be necessary, in order to sustain this action, to prove
that the owner or keeper of the dog knew that the dog was accustomed to causing this
damage.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases, 1967–2014 · leading case:
State v. Goulet, 21 A.3d 302 (R.I. 2011).
State v. Goulet, 21 A.3d 302 (R.I. 2011).
· cites it 4× “Before this Court, defendant raised the following issues: (1) a defense predicated on § 4-13-16, 10 (2) a defense predicated on § 4-13-19, 11 (3) an argument that the *308 search warrant was defective because the application for the warrant was based on evidence that had been…”
Jaime Carreiro v. David Tobin, Alias, 66 A.3d 820 (R.I. 2013).
· cites it 7× “General Laws 1956 § 4-13-16 provides that, if a dog “assaults, bites, or otherwise injures any person while traveling the highway or out of the enclosure of the owner or keeper of that dog, the owner or keeper of the dog shall be liable to the person aggrieved, for all damage…”
Johnston v. Poulin, 844 A.2d 707 (R.I. 2004).
· cites it 2× “Section 4-13-16 provides in part: “If any dog kills, wounds, worries, or assists in killing, wounding or worrying, any sheep, lamb, cattle, horse, hog, swine, fowl, or other domestic animal belonging to or in the possession of any person, or assaults, bites, or otherwise injures…”
Lamoureux v. Davis, 504 A.2d 449 (R.I. 1986).
· cites it 5× “The defendants’ motions for a directed verdict, made both at the close of the plaintiff’s case and renewed at the close of all evidence, were denied.”
Montiero v. Silver Lake I, L.P., 813 A.2d 978 (R.I. 2003).
· cites it 3× “2d 881, 882 (R.I.1992). It is evident from the record before us that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the existence of disputed material facts that would preclude judgment in defendants’ favor.”
Dubois v. Quilitzsch, 21 A.3d 375 (R.I. 2011).
· cites it 4× “749, § 1), however, the Legislature enacted a statute, now embodied in G.L.1956 § 4-13-16, that imposes strict liability in circumstances in which "any dog kills, wounds, worries, * * * assaults, bites, or otherwise injures any person while traveling the highway or out of the…”
Gregory Coogan v. Cheryl Nelson, 92 A.3d 213 (R.I. 2014).
· cites it 6× “General Laws 1956 § 4-13-16 imposes strict liability on dog owners if a dog “assaults, bites, or otherwise injures any person while traveling the highway or out of the enclosure of the owner or keeper of that dog * * (Emphasis added.”
Butti v. Rossi, 617 A.2d 881 (R.I. 1992).
· cites it 4× “1956 (1976 Reenactment) § 4-13-16 and that defendant had failed to post adequate warning signs of the presence of the dog.”
Bernhart v. Nine, 391 A.2d 75 (R.I. 1978).
· cites it 3× “1956 (1976 Reenactment) §4-13-16, which, in its pertinent part, makes an owner or keeper absolutely liable if his dog “shall assault, bite or otherwise injure any person” while that person is “traveling the highway or out of the enclosure of the owner or keeper of such dog.”
Brotko ex rel. Brotko v. United States, 727 F. Supp. 78 (D.R.I. 1989).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiffs’ arguments on this point rest on a theory of absolute liability by the government, since Section 4-13-16 provides for an owner’s or keeper’s liability absent proof of negligence or fault.”
Lindsay v. Crohan, 508 A.2d 674 (R.I. 1986).
· cites it 2× “This statute, which was also enacted before the turn of the century, imposes the same liability upon the harborer or keeper of the dog as is imposed on the owner by the terms of § 4-13-16. Specifically, Elizabeth relies upon a portion of § 4-13-17 that imposes liability upon any…”
Ferrara ex rel. Commonwealth of Massachusetts Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Marra, 823 A.2d 1134 (R.I. 2003).
“That statute is now embodied in § 4-13-16. However, § 4-13-17, 4 also enacted in 1896, does not extend the common law liability to dog bites that occur within an enclosure; instead, it merely “imposes upon the keeper or harborer of a dog the same liability as theretofore imposed…”
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.