Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Claims topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pawtucket council denies two vehicle-damage claims, refers one to state DOT and one to contractor
Summary
The Pawtucket City Council voted unanimously to deny two claims for vehicle damage and referred one to the Rhode Island Department of Transportation and the other to the private contractor identified in inspection reports.
The Pawtucket City Council denied two claims for vehicle damage and referred one to the Rhode Island Department of Transportation and the other to a private contractor, Ritchie Drain Company, during its meeting.
The action matters because the council determined it lacked ownership or operational control of the road defects alleged in the claims, so the city declined financial responsibility and sent claimants to other liable parties.
At a committee report and subsequent roll-call vote, the council voted 8-0 to deny a $325.88 claim by Lydia Trejo and refer her claim to the Rhode Island Department of Transportation. The council also denied a claim from Joao Fernandez — listed at $801.69 with an alternate $1,128.68 — and referred that claim to Ritchie Drain Company; the motion to deny and refer the Fernandez claim was made by Councilor Ruggio and seconded by Councilor Moreno. The clerk recorded the vote as eight yeas and no nays on both referrals.
Council members and staff discussed jurisdiction and inspection findings before the votes. City staff told the meeting that the Trejo claim involved a state-owned road and that a state rule caps direct claim payments at $300, so the city could not accept legal responsibility. As the staff put it, “we don't have the control and ownership, then legally, we can't be responsible.” That advice formed the basis for referring Trejo to the state process.
On the Fernandez claim, a field inspection report and testimony indicated that Ritchie Drain Company was performing work under contract for the city at the time of the incident and that the contractor had placed signage and traffic controls. Council members said those facts suggested any liability would rest with the contractor rather than the city, and they moved to deny and refer accordingly.
Both referrals include notes that claimants may pursue the other agencies' claim processes. The council did not authorize any city payments on either claim.
Clerk records and the committee report show the council processed the two claims together; no amendments or payments were made. The council's action was a formal denial and referral; it did not constitute a finding of fault by the city.
