R.I. Gen. Laws
Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-51 (2026)

Limitation on actions based on sexual abuse or exploitation of a child

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

(a)(1) All claims or causes of action brought against a perpetrator defendant by any person for recovery of damages for injury suffered as a result of sexual abuse shall be commenced within the later to expire of:

(i) Thirty-five (35) years of the act alleged to have caused the injury or condition; or

(ii) Seven (7) years from the time the victim discovered or reasonably should have discovered that the injury or condition was caused by the act.

Provided, however, that the time limit or commencement of such an action under this section shall be tolled for a child until the child reaches eighteen (18) years of age. For the purposes of this section, “sexual abuse” shall have the same meaning as in subsection (e) of this section.

(2) All claims or causes of action brought against a non-perpetrator defendant by any person alleging negligent supervision of a person that sexually abused a minor, or that the non-perpetrator defendant’s conduct caused or contributed to the childhood sexual abuse by another person to include, but not be limited to, wrongful conduct, neglect or default in supervision, hiring, employment, training, monitoring, or failure to report and/or the concealment of sexual abuse of a child shall be commenced within the later to expire of:

(i) Thirty-five (35) years of the act or acts alleged to have caused an injury or condition to the minor; or

(ii) Seven (7) years from the time the victim discovered or reasonably should have discovered that the injury or condition was caused by the act.

Provided, however, that the time limit or commencement of such an action under this section shall be tolled for a child until the child reaches eighteen (18) years of age.

For purposes of this section “sexual abuse” shall have the same meaning as in subsection (e) of this section.

(3) As to a perpetrator defendant, any claim or cause of action based on conduct of sexual abuse may be commenced within the time period enumerated in subsections (a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii) regardless if the claim was time-barred under previous version of the general laws.

(4) Except as provided in subsection (a)(3) herein, any claim or cause of action based on conduct of sexual abuse or conduct that caused or contributed to sexual abuse, if the action is not otherwise time-barred under previous version of the general laws on the effective date of this section, may be commenced within the time period enumerated in subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.

(b) The victim need not establish which act in a series of continuing sexual abuse or exploitation incidents caused the injury complained of, but may compute the date of discovery from the date of the last act by the same perpetrator which is part of a common scheme or plan of sexual abuse or exploitation.

(c) The knowledge of a custodial parent or guardian shall not be imputed to a person under the age of eighteen (18) years.

(d) For purposes of this section, “child” means a person under the age of eighteen (18) years.

(e) As used in this section, “sexual abuse” means any act committed by the defendant against a complainant who was less than eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the act and which act would have been a criminal violation of chapter 37 of title 11.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1993–2024 · leading case: Kelly v. Marcantonio, 678 A.2d 873 (R.I. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kelly v. Marcantonio, 678 A.2d 873 (R.I. 1996). · cites it 91× “"Is the time within which a claim must be brought for injury resulting from sexual abuse of a minor governed by R.I.Gen. Laws § 9-1-51 or R.I.Gen.Laws § 9-1-14(b) when the claim is asserted against someone other than the alleged abuser?" 2.”
Ryan v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence, 941 A.2d 174 (R.I. 2008). · cites it 8× “B Discovery of Harm Done The plaintiffs also assert that § 9-1-51, another statutory tolling provision, is applicable to the case at hand.”
Helen L. Hyde v. The Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence Jeffrey Thomas v. The Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence, 139 A.3d 452 (R.I. 2016). · cites it 16× “The defendant also argued that § 9-1-51 did not apply to non-perpetrator defendants and that there was no requirement for an evidentiary hearing *456 in this case.”
Smith v. O'connell, 997 F. Supp. 226 (D.R.I. 1998). · cites it 12× “In 1992 and 1993 the Rhode Island General Assembly lengthened the period of limitations for claims against perpetrators of childhood sexual abuse by enacting what is now R.I.Gen.Laws § 9-1-51. That section permits an action against the “perpetrator” to be brought up to seven…”
Martin v. Howard, 784 A.2d 291 (R.I. 2001). · cites it 3× “In the meantime, the Rhode Island General Assembly enacted G.L.1956 § 9-1-51, adopting a discovery rule for actions concerning crimes of childhood sexual abuse.”
Theta Props. v. Ronci Realty Co., Inc., 814 A.2d 907 (R.I. 2003). · cites it 2× “1996), we considered whether the retroactive application of G.L. 1956 § 9-1-51 was constitutionally permissible.”
Moriarty v. Garden Sanctuary Church of God, 511 S.E.2d 699 (S.C. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “1994); R.I.Gen.Laws § 9-1-51 (Supp.1994); S.D. Codified Laws Ann.”
S.V. v. R.V., 933 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. 1996). “117 (1995); R.I.Gen.Laws § 9-1-51 (Michie Supp.1995); S.”
Almonte v. New York Med. Coll., 851 F. Supp. 34 (D. Conn. 1994). “12, § 95 (action within 2 years of act or date of discovery, but no later than 20 years after majority); R.I Gen.Laws § 9-1-51 (action within 7 years of act or discovery); S.”
Todd M. v. Richard L., 696 A.2d 1063 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1995). “12, § 95 (1991); R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-51 (Sup. 1995); S.D.”
Robert Houllahan v. Louis E. Gelineau, Peter Cummings v. Louis E. Gelineau, Philip Edwardo v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence (R.I. 2023). · cites it 39× “On appeal, plaintiffs allege that the trial court erred in ruling that G.L. 1956 § 9-1-51 (the act), as amended, created a class of criminal actors beyond the scope of actual perpetrators as set forth in the act.”
Doe v. LaBrosse, 625 A.2d 222 (R.I. 1993). · cites it 2× “1956 (1985 Reenactment) § 9-1-51. This case had previously been considered by the court Frances Doe & Karen Doe v.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-51(a) — 2 cases
Kelly v. Marcantonio, 678 A.2d 873 (R.I. 1996). “"Is the time within which a claim must be brought for injury resulting from sexual abuse of a minor governed by R.I.Gen. Laws § 9-1-51 or R.I.Gen.Laws § 9-1-14(b) when the claim is asserted against someone other than the alleged abuser?" 2.”
Martin v. Howard, 784 A.2d 291 (R.I. 2001). “In the meantime, the Rhode Island General Assembly enacted G.L.1956 § 9-1-51, adopting a discovery rule for actions concerning crimes of childhood sexual abuse.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-51(a)(1) — 1 case
Robert Houllahan v. Louis E. Gelineau, Peter Cummings v. Louis E. Gelineau, Philip Edwardo v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence (R.I. 2023). “On appeal, plaintiffs allege that the trial court erred in ruling that G.L. 1956 § 9-1-51 (the act), as amended, created a class of criminal actors beyond the scope of actual perpetrators as set forth in the act.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-51(a)(1)(i) — 1 case
Robert Houllahan v. Louis E. Gelineau, Peter Cummings v. Louis E. Gelineau, Philip Edwardo v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence (R.I. 2023). “On appeal, plaintiffs allege that the trial court erred in ruling that G.L. 1956 § 9-1-51 (the act), as amended, created a class of criminal actors beyond the scope of actual perpetrators as set forth in the act.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-51(a)(2) — 2 cases
Robert Houllahan v. Louis E. Gelineau, Peter Cummings v. Louis E. Gelineau, Philip Edwardo v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence (R.I. 2023). “On appeal, plaintiffs allege that the trial court erred in ruling that G.L. 1956 § 9-1-51 (the act), as amended, created a class of criminal actors beyond the scope of actual perpetrators as set forth in the act.”
Doe v. Portsmouth Abbey Sch. (D.R.I. 2024).
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-51(a)(3) — 1 case
Robert Houllahan v. Louis E. Gelineau, Peter Cummings v. Louis E. Gelineau, Philip Edwardo v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence (R.I. 2023). “On appeal, plaintiffs allege that the trial court erred in ruling that G.L. 1956 § 9-1-51 (the act), as amended, created a class of criminal actors beyond the scope of actual perpetrators as set forth in the act.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-51(a)(4) — 1 case
Doe v. Portsmouth Abbey Sch. (D.R.I. 2024).
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-51(b) — 1 case
Kelly v. Marcantonio, 678 A.2d 873 (R.I. 1996). “"Is the time within which a claim must be brought for injury resulting from sexual abuse of a minor governed by R.I.Gen. Laws § 9-1-51 or R.I.Gen.Laws § 9-1-14(b) when the claim is asserted against someone other than the alleged abuser?" 2.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-51(e) — 2 cases
Kelly v. Marcantonio, 678 A.2d 873 (R.I. 1996). “"Is the time within which a claim must be brought for injury resulting from sexual abuse of a minor governed by R.I.Gen. Laws § 9-1-51 or R.I.Gen.Laws § 9-1-14(b) when the claim is asserted against someone other than the alleged abuser?" 2.”
Robert Houllahan v. Louis E. Gelineau, Peter Cummings v. Louis E. Gelineau, Philip Edwardo v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence (R.I. 2023). “On appeal, plaintiffs allege that the trial court erred in ruling that G.L. 1956 § 9-1-51 (the act), as amended, created a class of criminal actors beyond the scope of actual perpetrators as set forth in the act.”
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.