Start with R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-20-4. In Rhode Island, Rhode Island’s Pure Comparative Fault Act allows recovery even when the plaintiff is mostly at fault; damages are simply reduced by the plaintiff’s percentage of negligence. That is the question this guide answers for being sued after a car accident. The personal-injury deadline is Three years for personal injury actions under R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-14(b).. Auto liability insurance is required; pure comparative fault governs allocation among parties in covered accident claims.
Can you be sued after a car accident in Rhode Island?
Yes. A driver, passenger, pedestrian, or property owner injured in a crash can file a negligence (or related) claim against an allegedly at-fault driver — and against owners or employers in some agency/vicarious-liability settings. Being “mostly not at fault” does not stop a lawsuit from being filed; it shapes whether the plaintiff can win and how much they recover.
You can also be sued even when you believe the other driver is primarily responsible. Fault is usually a contested jury (or settlement) issue under R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-20-4.
Comparative fault and negligence in Rhode Island
Rhode Island’s Pure Comparative Fault Act allows recovery even when the plaintiff is mostly at fault; damages are simply reduced by the plaintiff’s percentage of negligence.
In Rhode Island, you can still recover even if you were mostly at fault — your damages are simply reduced by your percentage of fault. There is no 50% or 51% cutoff.
Practical consequences:
- Settlement leverage tracks predicted fault shares.
- Insurers often reserve rights or deny coverage based on comparative-fault findings.
- Multiple defendants (other drivers, employers, vehicle owners) can split fault among themselves under Rhode Island allocation rules.
How the Rhode Island rule applies
Apply the Rhode Island authorities in order. The facts are simplified so the statute and the standard are visible.
Two drivers collide in Rhode Island. Each claims the other was negligent, and one was partly at fault.
- Identify the fault system: In Rhode Island, you can still recover even if you were mostly at fault — your damages are simply reduced by your percentage of fault. There is no 50% or 51% cutoff..
- Apply what fault does to the claim: Rhode Island’s Pure Comparative Fault Act allows recovery even when the plaintiff is mostly at fault; damages are simply reduced by the plaintiff’s percentage of negligence.
- Calendar the lawsuit deadline: Three years for personal injury actions under R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-14(b)..
- Separate insurance coverage from whether a tort claim exists: Auto liability insurance is required; pure comparative fault governs allocation among parties in covered accident claims.
In Rhode Island the accident lawsuit turns on R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-20-4 and the pure comparative rule, not on a national no-fault script.
Insurance: at-fault, PIP, and no-fault thresholds
Auto liability insurance is required; pure comparative fault governs allocation among parties in covered accident claims.
First-party benefits (PIP / MedPay) do not always eliminate a tort suit. Where Rhode Island uses a no-fault threshold, confirm whether your injuries meet the statutory trigger before assuming a lawsuit is barred or available.
Deadline to sue (statute of limitations)
Three years for personal injury actions under R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-14(b).
Missing the deadline usually ends the claim permanently. Tolling (minority, discovery rules, bankruptcy stays) can apply in narrow situations — do not assume extra time without counsel.
What to do after a crash in Rhode Island
- Get medical care and document injuries.
- Preserve photos, dash-cam, witness names, and the police report.
- Notify your insurer promptly; avoid recorded statements to the other driver’s insurer without advice.
- Calendar the SOL: Three years for personal injury actions under R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-14(b)..
- Use LawDiver’s LawDiver rail (scoped to Rhode Island) to research comparative/contributory negligence opinions before negotiating.
Case law: fault and auto accidents in Rhode Island
Sylvia L. Kennedy Et Al. vs. Providence Hockey Club, Inc.
Sylvia L. Kennedy Et Al. vs. Providence Hockey Club, Inc., 119 R.I. 70 (1977)
…t like contributory negligence, and deem it subsumed by the comparative negligence statute, G.L. 1956 (1969 Reenactment) §9-20-4, as amended by P.L. 1972, eh. *74 18, §1. 2 Because of the conclusion we reach on this question, it is not necessary for us to determine whether this cause of action, which accrued prior to the passage of §9-20-4, is a suit “hereafter brought” within…
On car-accident / fault, Sylvia L. Kennedy Et Al. vs. Providence Hockey Club, Inc. speaks to the Rhode Island dispute in this passage: "G.L. 1956 (1969 Reenactment) §9-20-4, as amended by P.L. 1972, eh. *74 18, §1." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Kelly FISKE v. MacGREGOR, DIVISION OF BRUNSWICK Et Al.
Kelly FISKE v. MacGREGOR, DIVISION OF BRUNSWICK Et Al., 1983 R.I. LEXIS 1028 (1983)
…of the judgment wherein the trial justice, pursuant to our comparative-negligence statute, reduced the damages awarded in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the plaintiff. The damages reduced were awarded for the strict-liability, breach-of-implied-warranty, and negligence counts. During the 1974 football season, plaintiff, Kelly Fiske, was a starting defen…
Rhode Island opinions such as Kelly FISKE v. MacGREGOR, DIVISION OF BRUNSWICK Et Al. are cited where car-accident / fault is disputed. The court stated: "The damages reduced were awarded for the strict-liability, breach-of-implied-warranty, and negligence counts." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
ESTATE OF John E. BRASWELL, by Josephine BRASWELL, Executrix v. the PEOPLE’S CREDIT UNION
…the defendant’s request to charge the jury on the theory of comparative negligence. For the reasons set forth herein, we deny the defendant’s appeal and affirm the judgment of the Superior Court. The plaintiff (Mr. Braswell) and his wife (Mrs. Braswell) were members of defendant institution for approximately fifty years. During that period they obtained approximately ten passbo…
Practitioners open ESTATE OF John E. BRASWELL, by Josephine BRASWELL, Executrix v. the PEOPLE’S CREDIT UNION when Rhode Island car-accident / fault turns on the distinction in this sentence: "For the reasons set forth herein, we deny the defendant’s appeal and affirm the judgment of the Superior Court. The plaintiff (Mr. Braswell) and his wife (Mrs. Braswell) were members of defendant institution for approximately fifty years." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Gregory SWAJIAN Et Al. v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
Gregory SWAJIAN Et Al. v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, 1989 R.I. LEXIS 110 (1989)
…ment of defense from 1966 through 1975). With the advent of comparative-negligence principles, however, a ripple of judicial and legislative approval of this defense has spread throughout a number of jurisdictions, particularly in products liability “crashworthiness” cases. See Daly v. General Motors Corp., 20 Cal.3d 725, 575 P.2d 1162, 144 Cal.Rptr. 380 (1978); Dahl v. BMW, 30…
On car-accident / fault, Gregory SWAJIAN Et Al. v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION speaks to the Rhode Island dispute in this passage: "With the advent of comparative-negligence principles, however, a ripple of judicial and legislative approval of this defense has spread throughout a number of jurisdictions, particularly in products liability “crashworthiness” cases. See Daly v. General Motors Corp., 20 Cal." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Marylou COTRONA v. JOHNSON & WALES COLLEGE
Marylou COTRONA v. JOHNSON & WALES COLLEGE, 1985 R.I. LEXIS 596 (1985)
…al, believing that he was powerless to reassess plaintiff’s comparative negligence and to utilize the mechanism of remittitur. He reasoned that comparative fault is a factual determination to be made by the jury. Because neither side had addressed the question of the trial justice’s power to independently assess the plaintiff’s comparative negligence, we directed the litigants…
On car-accident / fault, Marylou COTRONA v. JOHNSON & WALES COLLEGE speaks to the Rhode Island dispute in this passage: "He reasoned that comparative fault is a factual determination to be made by the jury." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Jeanette CALISE Et Al. v. HIDDEN VALLEY CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Et Al.
…the plaintiffs by seeking to introduce evidence of probable comparative negligence on the part of two former defendants, who because of settlement stipulations, had been dismissed with prejudice as parties in the case. I FACTS/PROCEDURAL HISTORY On July 3, 1992, Jeanette Calise was injured when she slipped and fell of a common walkway leading to her condominium at 19 Trellis Dr…
Jeanette CALISE Et Al. v. HIDDEN VALLEY CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Et Al. is worth reading on Rhode Island car-accident / fault because the court put the point in its own words: "the plaintiffs by seeking to introduce evidence of probable comparative negligence on the part of two former defendants, who because of settlement stipulations, had been dismissed with prejudice as parties in the case. I FACTS/PROCEDURAL HISTORY On July 3, 1992, Jeanette Calise w" Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Key takeaways
- Fault system: pure comparative fault (recovery reduced by your share of fault, with no percentage bar).
- Controlling authority: R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-20-4.
- In Rhode Island, you can still recover even if you were mostly at fault — your damages are simply reduced by your percentage of fault. There is no 50% or 51% cutoff.
- Personal-injury filing deadline: Three years for personal injury actions under R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-14(b)..
- Insurance: Auto liability insurance is required; pure comparative fault governs allocation among parties in covered accident claims.
Frequently asked questions
Can I get sued if the accident was not my fault?
Anyone can file a suit. Winning — and collecting — depends on proving negligence and overcoming Rhode Island’s pure comparative rules under R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-20-4.
What if I was partly at fault?
In Rhode Island, you can still recover even if you were mostly at fault — your damages are simply reduced by your percentage of fault. There is no 50% or 51% cutoff.
How long do I have to sue after a car accident in Rhode Island?
Three years for personal injury actions under R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-14(b).
Does insurance prevent a lawsuit?
Auto liability insurance is required; pure comparative fault governs allocation among parties in covered accident claims. Coverage disputes are separate from whether a tort claim exists.