The reason a clergy abuse survivor can hold a diocese responsible — and not only the individual who committed the abuse — is a body of law called institutional liability. In plain terms, an institution can be liable not because it committed the abuse, but because of its own conduct in hiring, supervising, retaining, and overseeing the person who did, and in how it responded to warning signs. This page explains the recognized theories, the standard they turn on, and how the Rhode Island Attorney General’s 2026 findings map onto them. Marin & Murphy Law Firm is a complex-litigation firm that represents survivors of clergy sexual abuse in Rhode Island under the state’s 2026 revival window.
Talk With Us — Confidentially
If you'd like to talk with someone about whether Rhode Island's revival window applies to your situation, you can reach us below. What you share is confidential, there is no cost to ask, and contacting us does not commit you to anything.
Confidential · Free · Speak with a Rhode Island attorney — in person, by phone, or by video.
Why the institution, not just the abuser
Clergy abuse litigation in Rhode Island is, at its core, institutional litigation. The individual who committed the abuse is rarely the only party who bears legal responsibility — and, in many older cases, is deceased. The more consequential defendant is usually the institution that placed the abuser in a position of trust over children and failed to protect them: in the great majority of Rhode Island cases, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence. Naming the institution is not a novel theory; it is the ordinary structure of these claims, and it is the reason a case can succeed even when the abuser can no longer be sued. We address that specific situation on can I sue if the priest has died and the threshold question on can you sue the Diocese of Providence.
The recognized theories of institutional liability
Institutional liability is not a single claim but a set of related theories, each directed at the institution’s own acts and omissions rather than the abuser’s. The principal ones are:
Negligent hiring. Placing a person in a role with access to and authority over children without reasonable vetting — for example, ignoring information that should have disqualified them, or failing to make inquiries a reasonable institution would have made.
Negligent supervision and retention. Failing to monitor a person in ministry, or keeping that person in a role over children after the institution had notice of a risk. Retention liability is especially important in clergy cases, because it reaches what an institution did after a complaint — whether it removed the person, or returned them to a position of trust.
Failure to report. Failing to alert authorities or take protective action when the institution knew or should have known of abuse.
Concealment. Affirmatively hiding the danger — for instance, by transferring an accused person quietly rather than reporting, or by suppressing complaints — which can both ground liability and bear on the timing of a claim.
The standard: “knew or should have known”
Many of these theories turn on a single question: whether the institution knew or should have known of the danger and failed to act reasonably. This is what separates institutional liability from a claim against the abuser alone. The institution’s liability rests on its own decisions — what it knew, what it should have discovered, and how it responded — measured against what a reasonable institution in its position would have done to protect children in its care.
Some clergy cases also involve vicarious liability, the doctrine under which an employer can be responsible for acts committed within the scope of an agent’s role. But the direct-negligence theories above are usually the more important engine in abuse cases, because they reach the institution’s own failures of hiring, supervision, and candor — failures that do not depend on characterizing the abuse itself as within the scope of anyone’s duties.
How the Attorney General’s findings map onto these theories
The Rhode Island Attorney General’s 2026 report, the product of an investigation that began in 2019 and reviewed more than 250,000 pages of diocesan records, documented 75 clergy members credibly accused of child sexual abuse in the Diocese of Providence, with abuse spanning 1950 to 2011 and involving more than 300 child victims (R.I. AG Report, p.12 and pp.57–58). Beyond the count, the report described institutional conduct — the part that matters most for civil liability: it found that the Diocese often responded to complaints by transferring accused priests to new assignments rather than reporting them, prioritizing the avoidance of scandal over the protection of children.
That pattern is precisely what the negligent-retention and concealment theories address. The report also described a finding regarding the destruction of certain records, which the Diocese disputed; both the finding and the denial are part of the public record. None of this is a court judgment — “credibly accused” is the Attorney General’s investigative standard, not a criminal conviction — but it is the kind of documented institutional conduct on which a civil case is built. Our page on what the AG report says and what it does not sets out the findings and their limits in full.
Why a case can proceed when the abuser has died
Because institutional liability rests on the institution’s own acts and omissions, those claims do not disappear when the individual perpetrator dies. The negligent hiring, the failure to supervise, the decision to transfer rather than report — these were the institution’s choices, and the institution still exists to answer for them. This is one of the most important practical features of these cases: the death of an abuser, common in conduct reaching back to the mid-twentieth century, does not by itself end a survivor’s claim against the diocese. The detailed treatment is on can I sue if the priest has died.
How institutional liability fits the revival window
The 2026 revival window is what makes these institutional claims possible now. Enacted as R.I. Public Law 2026, ch. 081 (H 7200 Sub A / S 2616 Sub A), effective July 1, 2026, it provides that previously time-barred childhood sexual abuse claims “shall be revived and shall be commenced by no later than June 30, 2028” (R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-51(a)(3), as enacted by P.L. 2026 ch. 081 / S-2616A). Critically, the revival applies to institutional and supervisory defendants, not only to the individual abuser — so a survivor may bring a revived claim against the Diocese itself. As with any revival statute, the provision is constitutionally untested in Rhode Island; the act includes a severability clause (§ 9-1-55), and no court has yet ruled on the window. We explain the law on the revival-window overview, and how a case proceeds on how clergy abuse lawsuits against a diocese work.
If the institution reorganizes
One structural question can affect how an institutional claim is resolved: whether the institution remains in ordinary civil litigation or seeks reorganization in bankruptcy. In other states, some dioceses have filed for Chapter 11 and resolved abuse claims through a court-supervised settlement trust. To be clear, the Diocese of Providence has not filed for bankruptcy, and there is no public basis to claim that it has or will. We raise it only because it is the one development that would change the route an institutional claim travels; we explain that mechanism, as it has played out elsewhere, on our diocese bankruptcy and claims page.
Talk with us — confidentially
Whether a particular institution can be held responsible in your situation depends on facts that have to be looked at directly — what the institution knew, when, and how it responded. The most reliable next step is a confidential conversation with a Rhode Island attorney. What you share is confidential, there is no cost to ask, and reaching out does not commit you to anything. The window is open only until June 30, 2028.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can the Diocese of Providence be held responsible, not just the abuser? Yes — that is the core of these cases. An institution can be liable for its own conduct: negligent hiring, negligent supervision or retention, failure to report, or concealment, under a standard of whether it knew or should have known of the danger and failed to act reasonably. Because that liability rests on the institution’s own acts, a claim can proceed even if the individual abuser has died.
What does “negligent supervision” or “negligent retention” mean? Negligent supervision is failing to monitor a person in a role over children; negligent retention is keeping that person in such a role after the institution had notice of a risk. Retention liability is central to clergy cases because it reaches what the institution did after a complaint — whether it removed the person or returned them to a position of trust.
Does the Attorney General’s report prove the Diocese is liable? No. The report is an investigative findings document, not a court judgment, and “credibly accused” is the Attorney General’s evidentiary standard, not a criminal conviction. It documents institutional conduct — including complaints met with transfers rather than reporting — that is relevant to the negligence and concealment theories, but liability is decided case by case in court, not by the report.
Does the revival window let me sue the institution and not just the individual? Yes. The 2026 revival applies to institutional and supervisory defendants, not only the individual abuser, so a survivor may bring a revived claim against the Diocese itself — provided it is commenced by no later than June 30, 2028. Whether your specific claim qualifies is fact-specific and should be reviewed by a Rhode Island attorney.
Related on this site: religious-order priest abuse, what evidence you need, and the claim process.
About This Information
About this information: This page is general legal information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Whether any individual has a claim depends on the specific facts and must be evaluated by a licensed Rhode Island attorney.
About the Attorney General’s report: The findings of the Rhode Island Attorney General’s 2026 report are the results of an investigation, not determinations of civil or criminal liability by a court. “Credibly accused” is the Attorney General’s investigative standard; it is not a criminal conviction. Individuals who have been charged are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
About the law’s status: Rhode Island’s revival-window law (P.L. 2026 ch. 081, effective July 1, 2026) is new. As of the date of publication, no court has ruled on whether the revival of previously time-barred claims against institutions is constitutional. We make no representation about how any court will rule.
Updated July 2026.