Rhode Island's rule: reduced, never barred
Under R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-20-4, a lack of due care by the injured person does not bar recovery — damages are simply diminished in proportion to the claimant's own degree of fault. There is no percentage threshold at which recovery gets cut off entirely, unlike the "modified" systems used in many other states.
Worked example
Someone with $100,000 in damages, found 90% at fault, still recovers $10,000. Even at 99% fault, that same person would still recover $1,000 — only a finding of 100% fault eliminates recovery entirely.
A genuinely distinctive statutory provision: open and obvious hazards
Section 9-20-4 specifically addresses a scenario that trips up many premises liability claims elsewhere: the fact that a danger or defect was "open and obvious" does not, by itself, bar recovery in Rhode Island, though it may be considered by the jury in apportioning fault. This is a genuinely distinctive statutory choice, since some other states treat an open and obvious hazard as a complete bar under separate "no duty" doctrines.
A genuinely rare combination: pure comparative plus pure joint and several liability
Here's what makes Rhode Island stand out nationally. The state retains pure joint and several liability alongside its pure comparative negligence rule — a combination that genuinely shapes settlement leverage and trial strategy, since a plaintiff can generally recover a full judgment from any one liable defendant regardless of that defendant's individual share of fault. See our full guide to how fault and liability work together in Rhode Island for more on this, and the state's specific statutory bar on the seatbelt defense.