If any person receives or suffers bodily injury or damage to that person’s property
by reason of defect, want of repair, or insufficient railing, in or upon a public
highway, causeway, or bridge, in any town which is by law obliged to repair and keep
the same in a condition safe and convenient for travelers with their vehicles, which
injury or damage might have been prevented by reasonable care and diligence on the
part of the town, the person may recover, in the manner provided in this chapter,
from the town, the amount of damages, sustained by the aggrieved person, if the town
had reasonable notice of the defect, or might have had notice of the defect by the
exercise of proper care and diligence on its part.
Notes of Decisions
Sullivan v. Town of Coventry (R.I. 1998).
· cites it 10× “In her memorandum opposing summary judgment, plaintiff contended that the public-duty doctrine was inapplicable because Coventry was statutorily liable for its negligence pursuant to, inter alia, G.L.1956 § 45-15-8. On May 13, 1996, a Superior Court hearing justice heard…”
Barroso v. Pepin (R.I. 1970).
· cites it 8× “In the plea it alleged that the right to sue a municipality in these circumstances is conferred by statute, namely, §§45-15-8 and 45-15-9, and that, because the plaintiff, in purporting to bring the action, had failed to comply with the pertinent provisions of the statute, her…”
Karczmarczyk v. Quinn (R.I. 1964).
· cites it 7× “1956, §45-15-8, is barred unless it is instituted within a period of one year after the date of the injury under §45-15-9.”
Pullen v. State (R.I. 1998).
· cites it 3× “General Laws 1956 § 45-15-8; see also Bierman v. Shookster, 590 A.”
Hareld v. Napolitano (R.I. 1992).
· cites it 4× “The city argued that the suit should be dismissed because the plaintiffs right to sue, conferred by §§ 45-15-8 and 45-15-9, required that the municipality be given notice of the claim within sixty days of its occurrence.”
Yankee v. LeBlanc (R.I. 2003).
· cites it 3× “1956 § 31-1-23, and G.L.1956 § 45-15-8 give rise to a statutory duty to keep the roadways clear that may be breached by a failure to trim shrubbery bordering a roadway.”
Prout v. City of Providence (R.I. 2010).
· cites it 2× “In cases in which an injury could have been prevented by reasonable care, § 45-15-8 2 sets forth a mechanism through which injured citizens may recover for their losses.”
Provost v. Finlay (R.I. 2001).
· cites it 2× “On March 22, 1995, she filed a complaint in the Superior Court to recover damages under G.L.1956 § 45-15-8 (“Recovery against town for damages from neglect to maintain highway or bridge”) for the injuries she allegedly sustained as a result of the fall.”
O'Gara v. Ferrante (R.I. 1997).
· cites it 2× “” Section 45-15-8 provides for recovery against a town for injury resulting from the town’s failure to maintain a highway as required by law.”
Bierman v. Shookster (R.I. 1991).
“1956 (1988 Reenactment) § 45-15-8. By placing an automatic signal light at an intersection, the municipality governs the behavior of drivers and pedestrians who utilize those areas.”
Mercado v. City of Providence (R.I. 2001).
· cites it 3× “Discussion Pursuant to § 45-15-8, 3 an individual who suffers an injury to his or her person or property as a result of a municipality’s failure to sufficiently maintain its highways or bridges, including its sidewalks, may recover damages incurred as a proximate result of the…”
Polaski v. O'REILLY (R.I. 1989).
“1956 (1988 Reenactment) § 45-15-8 imposes liability upon municipalities in the following terms: “Right against town for damages from neglect to maintain highway or bridge.”
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.