Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-31-2 (2026)

Limitations of damages — State

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In any tort action against the state of Rhode Island or any political subdivision thereof, any damages recovered therein shall not exceed the sum of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000); provided, however, that in all instances in which the state was engaged in a proprietary function in the commission of the tort, or in any situation whereby the state has agreed to indemnify the federal government or any agency thereof for any tort liability, the limitation on damages set forth in this section shall not apply.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 27 cases, 1980–2017 · leading case: Victoria Roach v. State of Rhode Island, 157 A.3d 1042 (R.I. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Victoria Roach v. State of Rhode Island, 157 A.3d 1042 (R.I. 2017). · cites it 43× “-1- The state asserts multiple arguments on appeal: (1) the public-duty doctrine shields the state from liability; (2) the statutory tort cap in G.L. 1956 § 9-31-2 limits damages to $100,000; (3) the prejudgment interest award was improper; (4) the trial justice erred in denying…”

Andrade v. State, 448 A.2d 1293 (R.I. 1982). · cites it 12× “Reading the act as a whole, it is apparent that the liability of the state that is to be "in the same manner as a private individual" refers to liability for damages only. Section 9-31-1 further provides that "any recovery in such action shall not exceed the monetary limitations…”

Barratt v. Burlingham, 492 A.2d 1219 (R.I. 1985). · cites it 6× “I believe that both the floodgates argument and the over-taxed-treasury argument have been substantially addressed by the Legislature the former through § 9-31-1 and the latter through the statutory limitation on monetary damages found in § 9-31-2. [4] Through these two…”

Marrapese v. Rhode Island, 500 F. Supp. 1207 (D.R.I. 1980). · cites it 5× “G.L. § 9-31-2. Section 9-31-1 obviously represents a radical shift in state policy.”

Graff v. Motta, 695 A.2d 486 (R.I. 1997). · cites it 6× “In March of 1988, Graff, apparently intending to file a civil negligence action against the city stemming from the June 1, 1987 collision and aware that G.L.1956 § 9-31-2 limited his potential recovery to $100,-000, had his attorney request introduction of a special act in the…”

Kennedy v. State, 654 A.2d 708 (R.I. 1995). · cites it 7× “1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 9-31-2, as amended by P.L.1974, eh. 39, § 1, limited the damages recoverable in any tort action against the state to $50,000.”

Laird v. Chrysler Corp., 460 A.2d 425 (R.I. 1983). · cites it 5× “Section 9-31-2. In contrast to its prior practice in enacting private legislation for plaintiffs, the Legislature placed few conditions on the state’s consent to suit.”

Lepore v. Rhode Island Pub. Transit Auth., 524 A.2d 574 (R.I. 1987). · cites it 6× “Section 9-31-2 provides: “In any tort action against the state of Rhode Island, or any political subdivision thereof, any damages recovered therein shall not exceed the sum of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000); Provided, however, That in all instances in which the state…”

Irwin v. Town of Ware, 467 N.E.2d 1292 (Mass. 1984). · cites it 2× “But see R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-31-2 (Supp. 1983). Compare other jurisdictions with relatively low liability limits, applicable, however, on a per-claimant basis: Va.”

Mottola v. Cirello, 789 A.2d 421 (R.I. 2002). · cites it 3× “Prejudgment Interest and the Statutory Cap on Damages Although the applicability of the statutory cap on damages provided for in *426 § 9-31-2 and the availability of prejudgment interest in the context of this case are intriguing questions, these issues were not before the…”

Kaya v. Partington, 681 A.2d 256 (R.I. 1996). · cites it 2× “Sections 9-31-2, 9-31-3. As applied to public-safety officers, the majority apparently considers this legislative policy to "create a result not intended by the Legislature," but our elected representatives who enacted this law subjecting cities and towns to liability for " all…”

Catone v. Medberry, 555 A.2d 328 (R.I. 1989). · cites it 2× “Sections 9-31-2 and 9-31-3. We note, however, that this waiver of immunity by itself does not establish a cause of action in tort against governmental entities.”

Show all 27 citing cases →

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.