Disponible las 24 horas del día, los 7 días de la semana
Disponible las 24 horas del día, los 7 días de la semana
In a Rhode Island dog bite case, the first question is where the bite happened. If a dog bites or injures someone on a public road or anywhere outside its owner’s enclosure, R.I. Gen. Laws § 4-13-16 makes the owner or keeper liable for all the damage, with no need to prove the owner knew the dog was dangerous. Inside the owner’s enclosure the statute does not apply. There the older common law rule governs, and the victim has to show the owner knew the dog had vicious propensities. The Rhode Island Supreme Court has said the location of the bite can be outcome-determinative.
This page covers both rules, what Rhode Island courts treat as an enclosure (a fence is not required), who counts as an owner, keeper, or harborer, landlord liability, the defenses owners raise, pure comparative fault, a child’s case, the three year deadline and the extra step against a city or town, damages and the $100,000 government cap, the vicious dog law, reporting and rabies, and insurance.
Dog Bite Laws handles dog attack cases. Talk to us for free, and pay no fee unless we recover money for you.
Rhode Island has had a dog bite statute since 1889. Today it is Section 4-13-16, and its key sentence says 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 “shall be liable to the person aggrieved, for all damage sustained.” The victim need not prove the owner knew the dog was accustomed to causing that damage. That is strict liability.
The statute has a boundary, though. For a bite inside the owner’s enclosure, the Rhode Island Supreme Court applies the common law. In DuBois v. Quilitzsch (2011) the court said that when injuries are suffered within an owner’s enclosed area, the plaintiff first must prove the defendant knew about the dog’s vicious propensities, a requirement it called the one bite rule. Two years later, in Carreiro v. Tobin, it said that where the bite took place can be outcome-determinative.
The court has refused invitations to soften this. In DuBois the injured man was an inspector on the property to do his job, and the court held that the one bite rule applies even to an invited visitor, leaving any change to the General Assembly. The official code lists no amendment to Section 4-13-16 since the 1956 recodification.
The name one bite rule misleads in a helpful way. In Coogan v. Nelson (2014) the court said it has never required that the earlier incident be a bite, and a prior deep scratch on a child’s nose was enough to send the owner’s knowledge to a factfinder.
What you have to prove depends on which of Rhode Island’s three routes fits your facts.
The second route is where most of the work goes. The earlier incident does not have to be a bite. In Coogan v. Nelson (2014) a police report of a deep scratch on a child’s nose was enough to raise a question about whether the owners knew or should have known the dog was dangerous. In Ferrara v. Marra (2003) a police report of an earlier bite by one of the tenant’s dogs was enough to require a trial on whether the landlord knew. The court in Coogan added that a defendant’s state of mind is rarely something a judge should decide on paper before trial.
So gather two kinds of evidence early: proof of who had the dog, exactly where you stood, and what the injury cost; and proof of what the owner knew, which gets harder to find every month.
Rhode Island’s dog chapter leaves leash rules for ordinary dogs to cities and towns. Section 4-13-15.1 lets each city and town adopt ordinances on unrestricted dogs, leash rules, confinement, and vicious dogs. Those ordinances may bar dogs from running unrestricted anywhere in town and let the dog officer impound a loose dog found off its owner’s property, with fines of up to $250.
For your claim, a leash violation usually matters less than you might expect. A loose dog that bites someone on the street or in a neighbor’s yard is, almost by definition, outside its owner’s enclosure, which puts the case under Section 4-13-16 and its strict liability. A citation from the town dog officer then becomes corroboration: a dated official record that the dog was off its property and out of anyone’s control when it reached you.
The rules get stricter for a dog that has already been declared vicious. That dog must be leashed and muzzled off its owner’s property, and when it leaves its locked enclosure it must be on a leash or chain no longer than three feet with a tensile strength of at least 300 pounds, under the owner’s direct control. A violation can lead to confiscation of the dog and a fine. Because leash rules vary from town to town, check the ordinance where you were bitten.
Section 4-13-16 makes the owner or keeper liable. A second statute, Section 4-13-17, reaches further: anyone keeping or harboring a dog in their house or on their land, or knowingly suffering someone else to do so, is liable for all damage the dog does “in the same manner as if he or she were the owner.” The Rhode Island Supreme Court has said the first step under that section is proving the keeper or harborer knew the dog was on the premises. It has also said Section 4-13-17 does not apply to the owner, who is covered directly.
Rhode Island cases have not defined keeper, and in Carreiro v. Tobin the court focused on who was controlling the dog at the moment of the bite. The court suggested that the brothers who lived in the upstairs apartment, where the dog was brought and the bite happened, were probably its keepers that afternoon. The dog chapter itself defines an owner or keeper broadly, as anyone keeping, harboring, or having charge or control of a dog, or anyone who lets a dog habitually be fed on their premises. It treats a guardian the same as an owner. The court did not cite that definition in Carreiro when it said Rhode Island case law has no definition of keeper.
One statute addresses parents directly. If a minor owns or keeps a dog that has been declared vicious, the minor’s parent or guardian is liable for injuries from an unprovoked attack by that dog under Section 4-13.1-13.
Several people can share responsibility at once. If you are unsure who had the dog, read what determines ownership of a dog. And if you were the one walking, sitting, or caring for the dog when it bit you, tell your lawyer at the start, because your own role can change the analysis.
Section 4-13-16 does not list any defenses. It does not mention provocation, teasing, or trespass.
What the statute does have is the enclosure rule. The Rhode Island Supreme Court explained it in a 1936 decision it still relies on. The purpose of the enclosure, it said, is not to keep the dog in but “to keep persons outside, unless they are willing to assume the risk of being injured, while on the occupied premises, by a dog which is there kept and which the occupant reasonably believes to be gentle.” So anyone bitten inside an owner’s enclosure, invited or not, must prove the owner knew the dog was dangerous. A trespasser in a fenced yard has no claim under Section 4-13-16 for that reason alone.
Delivery drivers get no special exception. In Coogan, a UPS driver argued the one bite rule should not apply to him because of his job, and the court pointed back to DuBois. He still won reinstatement of his case, on the enclosure and knowledge questions.
Provocation shows up expressly in the vicious dog chapter. A dog may not be declared vicious based on an injury to someone who was trespassing or committing another tort on the owner’s premises, teasing, tormenting, provoking, abusing, or assaulting the dog, or committing a crime, and a dog protecting a person from an unjustified attack is also excluded. Those exclusions govern whether a dog may be declared vicious. For background, see our guide to dog bite provocation.
Expect an adjuster to argue your own conduct either way, under Rhode Island’s comparative fault rule or as assumption of risk. The two are different. In Kennedy v. Providence Hockey Club (1977) the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that the comparative negligence statute does not affect assumption of the risk as a complete bar to recovery in a negligence action, but the defense applies only when the injured person actually knew of and understood the danger and chose to encounter it. One related right: Section 4-13-18 lets a person kill a dog that suddenly assaults them or someone with them outside the owner’s enclosure.
Rhode Island uses pure comparative fault, the most forgiving version. Section 9-20-4 says that the fact an injured person may not have been using due care “shall not bar a recovery,” and that damages are instead reduced in proportion to the injured person’s share of the negligence. There is no 50 or 51 percent cutoff.
The arithmetic is simple. A jury that values your injuries at $100,000 and finds you 20 percent at fault awards $80,000. If it finds you 70 percent at fault, you still recover $30,000. Section 9-20-4.1 adds that there shall be no setoff of damages between the parties.
A 2019 amendment matters too. Since then, the statute says that a danger being open and obvious also does not bar recovery. That change applies to injuries that happened after it passed.
One caveat. Section 4-13-16 imposes liability without proof of fault, while Section 9-20-4 speaks of the injured person’s negligence. Expect the insurer to argue that your carelessness still reduces a strict liability award.
Rhode Island’s dog laws were written with children in mind. When the General Assembly passed the vicious dog chapter, it declared that vicious dogs had seriously injured numerous people, “particularly children.” In Ferrara v. Marra, the victim was an eleven year old attacked by three dogs while visiting an apartment.
A child bitten in Rhode Island has more time than an adult. Section 9-1-19 lets a person who was under 18 when the claim arose bring it within the normal period after that disability ends, and Rhode Island sets full age at 18. With the three year personal injury period, the outside deadline for the child’s own claim is the twenty-first birthday.
Parents have claims of their own, and those should not wait. Section 9-1-41 lets parents recover for the loss of an unemancipated minor child’s society and companionship caused by a tortious injury, and it ties that claim to the regular three year limitations period. The pause in Section 9-1-19 is written for the person who was under 18, so do not assume a parent’s claims, including for medical bills, ride along on the child’s longer clock.
Expect the owner’s insurer to talk about what your child did. Section 4-13-16 does not mention teasing or provocation, and under Section 9-20-4 a finding that a child was careless reduces the award rather than barring it. If an adjuster is pointing at your child, read whether a child can provoke a dog, then talk to a lawyer.
Rhode Island’s vicious dog chapter defines a serious injury to include permanently disfiguring lacerations requiring stitches or cosmetic surgery. A settlement offer made before anyone knows how a scar will mature deserves suspicion.
A Rhode Island landlord is not automatically responsible for a tenant’s dog. The path to the landlord runs through Section 4-13-17, which makes anyone who knowingly suffers another person to keep or harbor a dog on their land liable as if they were the owner. The Rhode Island Supreme Court has read that as a two step test. First, the landlord must have known the dog was on the premises. Second, you must show the level of fault the law requires for where the bite happened, which inside the enclosure means the landlord knew the dog was dangerous.
Three cases show how this plays out.
So the evidence that matters against a landlord is evidence of knowledge. In Ferrara it was the landlord’s weekly visits to collect rent, which showed he knew the dogs lived there, and a police report of an earlier bite at the address. Montiero also described a harborer under Section 4-13-17 as strictly liable, like the owner, for damage outside the enclosure.
Shared buildings raise their own enclosure questions. In Carreiro, whether one apartment in a two-family house was a separate enclosure depended on facts like whether it was kept locked and whether the owner of the house was excluded from it.
Three years from the date of the bite. Section 9-1-14(b) requires actions for injuries to the person to be filed within three years after the cause of action accrues.
Treat all of those as outer limits. The deadlines that shape a case are much shorter: the ten day quarantine, the animal control officer’s investigation, and the days before a gate gets fixed, a fence goes up, or a wound closes. In an enclosure case, photographs of the property as it looked on the day of the bite can matter more than anything else. Our guide to the dog bite statute of limitations explains how these clocks interact.
Rhode Island’s statute covers more than bites. Section 4-13-16 applies when a dog “assaults, bites, or otherwise injures” a person, and the Rhode Island Supreme Court pointed to that wording in Coogan. A dog that knocks over a cyclist or sends a jogger to the pavement falls within the same law; see our guide to a dog attack without a bite.
One Rhode Island limit to know: in Rowbotham v. Maher (1995) the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that Section 4-13-16 does not allow recovery for emotional trauma from losing a pet killed by other dogs. That case concerned a pet’s death, not a person’s own bite injuries.
When Section 4-13-16 applies, the owner or keeper is liable for all damage sustained. A claim typically includes medical bills past and future, lost wages and earning capacity, out of pocket costs, pain and suffering, and scarring and disfigurement. A spouse may recover for loss of consortium, and parents of a minor child may recover for loss of the child’s society and companionship under Section 9-1-41.
Government defendants are different. Under Section 9-31-3, damages against a city, town, or fire district may not exceed $100,000, and Section 9-31-2 sets the same limit for the state and its political subdivisions. The cap does not apply when the government was engaged in a proprietary function when the tort happened.
Several Rhode Island rules can raise the number:
Punitive damages are hard to get. The Rhode Island Supreme Court has said they are severely restricted and reserved for conduct showing malice or bad faith, amounting to criminality that ought to be punished. If a dog attack causes a death, the wrongful death statute sets a minimum award of $350,000 for causes of action occurring on or after January 1, 2024, up from $250,000 before that date. For more, see dog bite compensation.
Rhode Island calls these dogs vicious rather than dangerous, and its law is chapter 4-13.1 of the General Laws. A vicious dog includes any dog that approaches a person in an apparent attitude of attack on a street or other public place without provocation, any dog with a known propensity to attack unprovoked, and any dog that “bites, inflicts injury, assaults, or otherwise attacks a human being or domestic animal without provocation on public or private property.” On that last definition, a single unprovoked bite can be enough.
The process is a local hearing. When a dog officer or police officer has probable cause to believe a dog is vicious, the chief dog officer or the police chief may convene a hearing before a three person panel: the police chief or a designee, the head of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals or a designee, and a third person they choose. The public hearing must be held 5 to 10 days after the owner gets notice, and the owner can ask the district court for a fresh hearing within five days.
A declaration changes the owner’s obligations. The panel or court may require $100,000 of liability insurance, a tattoo or microchip, a warning sign, and a locked enclosure at least six feet high, and the owner must notify the police or the dog officer within two hours if the dog gets loose or attacks. If a declared dog attacks a person, the owner faces a $1,000 fine and the dog may be confiscated and euthanized. A dog that kills a person must be euthanized.
For you, the declaration matters most if it came before your bite. Then Section 4-13.1-7 says the owner may be liable for an unprovoked attack inside or outside the enclosure, on a leash or not, and you do not have to prove what the owner knew. Rhode Island does not allow breed-specific rules: since 2013 no city or town may pass an ordinance aimed at a particular breed. For more, read how many times a dog can bite before being put down.
Doctors and other health care providers must report a dog bite to the Rhode Island Department of Health within 24 hours. The state’s reportable disease rules put bites on the list of immediately reportable conditions for the physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, labs, and facilities those rules cover, and the state’s Manual for Rabies Management and Protocols says physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants must report them both to the Department of Health and to the animal control officer for the city or town where the bite happened.
You should report it as well. The Department of Health tells people who were bitten to call the department and the animal control officer at the local police department, and it offers an online Animal Bites Report Form on its rabies page. The animal control officer orders the quarantine. Here is what happens after a dog bite is reported.
For a healthy dog that bit a person, the manual’s protocol is ten days. If the dog’s rabies vaccination is current, the officer orders quarantine or strict confinement for ten days, with confinement at home allowed only for a vaccinated dog unlikely to escape. If the dog is not vaccinated, it goes into quarantine for ten days and is vaccinated on release. An owner can appeal a quarantine order to the Superior Court.
Rhode Island requires rabies vaccination. Under Section 4-13-31, unless rabies control board regulations provide otherwise, a dog, cat, or ferret must be vaccinated between three and four months of age and at regular intervals after that, and no city or town may license an unvaccinated pet. If the dog that bit you was unvaccinated, read about being bitten by an unvaccinated dog. The department reports that Rhode Island has not had a human rabies case since 1940, but the raccoon strain circulates widely in wildlife, which is why the quarantine matters.
The best available industry number is national. For 2025, the Insurance Information Institute and State Farm reported an average of $65,450 per dog-related injury claim across 28,450 claims nationwide, and their report does not give a Rhode Island figure. That is an insurance claim average across every claim, small and large. It is not a settlement value and it does not predict any one case.
What actually moves the number in a Rhode Island case:
Our overview of dog bite settlement amounts explains how injury levels affect value, and the dog bite settlement calculator gives a rough sense of ranges.
The dog owner’s homeowners or renters liability policy is the usual place to look for payment. The Insurance Information Institute says standard homeowners and renters policies typically cover dog bite liability up to the policy’s liability limits, usually $100,000 to $300,000 nationally, with the owner responsible for damages above that amount.
Rhode Island has an unusual procedural rule here. Under Section 27-7-2, you sue the insured owner, not the insurance company, and the insurer may not be joined as a defendant. You may proceed directly against the insurer only in limited situations, such as when the officer serving the lawsuit cannot find the owner or the owner has died, or after you win a judgment against the owner.
Two more Rhode Island points:
Also check for a landlord’s policy or an umbrella policy.
For the full process, read our guide on how to file a dog bite claim.
Dog Bite Laws handles dog attack cases, and Rhode Island is a state where one fact can decide the outcome. Our work starts with the enclosure question: documenting the property, the boundaries, and the notice a visitor had, because a bite outside the enclosure carries strict liability and a bite inside it does not. Then we build the knowledge case anyway, gathering animal control files, police reports, and prior complaints, so your claim does not depend on winning the enclosure fight alone.
We handle the insurer so you do not have to, and we push back when an adjuster tries to turn an ordinary visit into an assumption of risk. We work on a contingency fee, so there is nothing to pay to start and no fee unless we recover money for you. Founding attorney Michael Agruss built the firm around injury clients who need someone else to carry the paperwork.
We take dog bite cases across Rhode Island, including Providence, Warwick, Cranston, Pawtucket, East Providence, Woonsocket, and Newport. If you or your child was bitten, contact us for a free consultation. We will tell you honestly whether there is a claim worth bringing.
Only for bites inside the owner's enclosure. If the dog injured you on a road or anywhere outside the owner's enclosed property, Section 4-13-16 makes the owner or keeper liable without any proof that the dog had shown aggression before. Inside the enclosure, you must prove the owner knew the dog was dangerous, though the earlier incident does not have to be a bite. In a 2014 case, a police report of an earlier deep scratch on a child was enough to send the question to a factfinder.
Not necessarily. Rhode Island defines an enclosure as a fence, a physical obstruction, or any other condition that gives reasonable notice the area is private. In a 2014 case involving an unfenced driveway, the Rhode Island Supreme Court said whether the spot was inside the enclosure was a question for the factfinder. Photographs of the property as it looked that day are often the most important evidence in the case.
Sometimes. A landlord who knowingly allows a tenant to keep a dog can be liable as if the landlord owned it. You first have to show the landlord knew the dog was there, and for a bite inside the enclosure, that the landlord knew it was dangerous. A police report of an earlier bite at the address was enough to send one Rhode Island landlord case to trial.
Three years from the date of the bite for an adult. A child's own claim can be filed until three years after the eighteenth birthday. If a city or town is responsible, you still have three years, but you must first present the claim to the city or town council and wait 40 days. Evidence fades much sooner, so it is best to start within weeks.
Yes. Rhode Island uses pure comparative fault, so your own carelessness reduces your award but does not bar it. A victim found 70 percent at fault still recovers 30 percent of the damages. Insurers will argue that the reduction also applies to a strict liability claim under the dog statute.
The local animal control officer orders a ten day quarantine, or strict confinement at home for a vaccinated dog in some cases, to watch for rabies. Separately, police or the dog officer can convene a public hearing to decide whether the dog is vicious. A declared vicious dog must be locked up and muzzled off the property, and a dog that kills a person must be euthanized.
Against a private dog owner, the owner's insurance policy limit can be the practical ceiling on what is collectible. Claims against the state, a city, a town, or a fire district are capped at $100,000 unless the government was acting in a proprietary role. Rhode Island also adds 12 percent annual interest from the date of the injury to a verdict.
«*» indica los campos obligatorios
«*» indica los campos obligatorios
Ponte en contacto con nosotros por teléfono, correo electrónico, mensaje de texto o chat para hablar de tu caso.