First note that $a_1 < a_2 < \dots < a_n$ (with strict inequality). Assume by means of contradiction that were not the case, i.e. for some $i \not=j$, $a_i = a_j$. Further, assume without loss of generality that $b_i < b_j$, then we would have the following for all $x \in \mathbb{R}$ as a result of the assumption $a_i = a_j$:
$$ a_i x + b_i < a_i x + b_j = a_j x + b_j \,, $$
such that the $i$th function would be redundant, contradicting the hypotheses.
For notational purposes, define for all $i \in [n]$:
$$ f_i := a_i x + b_i \quad \implies f:= \max_{i \in [n]} f_i \,. $$
The hypotheses guarantee us that for each $i \in [n]$, there exists a $x_i \in \mathbb{R}$ such that $f(x_i) = f_i (x_i)$, or in other words the maximum of the $i$ linear functions at $x_i$ is $f_i$. We can write this as the following equations (note the three cases: $i = 1, 1 < i < n, i = n$):
$$\begin{array}{lcccl}
\exists x_1 \in \mathbb{R} : & a_1 x_1 + b_1 > a_2 x_1 + b_2 \,, & a_1 x_1 + b_1 > a_3 x_1 + b_3 \,, & \dots & a_1 x_1 + b_1 > a_n x_1 + b_n \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & & \vdots \\
\exists x_i \in \mathbb{R}: & a_i x_i + b_i > a_1 x_i + b_1 \,, & a_i x_i + b_i > a_2 x_i + b_2 \,, & \dots & a_i x_i + b_i > a_n x_i + b_n \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & & \vdots \\
\exists x_n \in \mathbb{R}: & a_n x_n + b_n > a_1 x_n + b_1 \,, & a_n x_n + b_n > a_2 x_n + b_2 \,, & \dots & a_n x_n + b_n > a_{n-1} x_n + b_{n-1} \,.
\end{array}$$
Note that the $i$th row of the above inequalities hold for any point such that $f(x) = f_i$, possibly with strict inequality replaced by non-strict inequality at the intersection of two distinct lines (a cutpoint). The inequalities can be rewritten as follows:
$$ \begin{array}{rccccl}
(\!a_1\! -\! a_2\!) x_1 > b_2\! -\! b_1 , & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & (\!a_1\! -\! a_n\!) x_1 > b_n\! -\! b_1 \\
\vdots & & & & & \vdots \\
(\!a_i\! -\! a_1\!) x_i > b_1 \!-\! b_i , & \dots & (\!a_i\! -\! a_{i-1}\!) x_i > b_{i-1} \!-\! b_i, & (\!a_i\! -\! a_{i+1}\!) x_i > b_{i+1}\! -\! b_i , & \dots & (\!a_i\! -\! a_n\!) x_i > b_n\! -\! b_i \\
\vdots & & & & & \vdots \\
(\!a_n\! -\! a_1\!) x_n > b_1\! -\! b_n , & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & (\!a_n\! -\! a_{n-1}\! ) x_n > b_{n-1} \!- \!b_n .
\end{array}$$
Using the observation that $a_1 < \dots < a_n$, it follows that for $i < j$, $a_i - a_j < 0$ and $a_j - a_i > 0$. Therefore we can rewrite the above inequalities yet further as follows:
$$\begin{array}{rccccl}
x_1 < \frac{ b_2\! -\! b_1}{a_1\! -\! a_2 } , & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & x_1 < \frac{b_n\! -\! b_1 }{a_1\! -\! a_n} \\
\vdots & & & & & \vdots \\
x_i > \frac{b_1 \!-\! b_i}{a_i\! -\! a_1} , & \dots & x_i > \frac{b_{i-1} \!-\! b_i}{a_i\! -\! a_{i-1}}, & x_i < \frac{b_{i+1}\! -\! b_i}{a_i\! -\! a_{i+1}} , & \dots & x_i < \frac{b_n\! -\! b_i}{a_i\! -\! a_n} \\
\vdots & & & & & \vdots \\
x_n >\frac{ b_1\! -\! b_n}{a_n\! -\! a_1} , & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & x_n > \frac{b_{n-1} \!- \!b_n}{a_n\! -\! a_{n-1}} .
\end{array}$$
We rewrite the above slightly so that the denominators are always of the form $a_j - a_i $ for $i< j$ (thus positive), and the numerators are of the form $ b_i - b_j $ for $i < j$, so as to better notice a crucial pattern:
$$\begin{array}{rccccl}
x_1 < \frac{ b_1\! -\! b_2}{a_2\! -\! a_1 } , & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & x_1 < \frac{b_1\! -\! b_n }{a_n\! -\! a_1} \\
\vdots & & & & & \vdots \\
x_i > \frac{b_i \!-\! b_1}{a_1\! -\! a_i} , & \dots & x_i > \frac{b_i \!-\! b_{i-1}}{a_{i-1}\! -\! a_i}, & x_i < \frac{b_{i+1}\! -\! b_i}{a_i\! -\! a_{i+1}} , & \dots & x_i < \frac{b_n\! -\! b_i}{a_i\! -\! a_n} \\
\vdots & & & & & \vdots \\
x_n >\frac{ b_1\! -\! b_n}{a_n\! -\! a_1} , & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & x_n > \frac{b_{n-1} \!- \!b_n}{a_n\! -\! a_{n-1}} .
\end{array}$$
Specifically, given $i < j$, the above inequalities show us that:
$$ f_i \ge f_j \iff x \le \frac{b_i - b_j}{a_j - a_i} \,, \quad \quad \quad f_j \ge f_i \iff x \ge \frac{b_i - b_j}{a_j - a_i } \,. $$
Therefore, for each $i,j \in [n]$, $i < j$, we define the constant:
$$ c_{ij} := \frac{b_i - b_j}{ a_j - a_i } \quad \text{with the property that }\quad f_i \ge f_j \iff x \le c_{ij} , \, f_j \ge f_i \iff x \ge c_{ij} \,. $$
For each $1<i <n$, we have in particular that, since there exists an $x_i$ with $\max f_k (x_i) = f_i(x_i)$:
$$ x_i > c_{i-1, i} \,, \quad x_i < c_{i, i+1} \quad \implies \quad c_{i-1,i} < c_{i, i+1} \,. $$
Chaining all of these results together, we get by transitivity that:
$$ c_{12} < c_{23} < \dots < c_{i-1,i} < c_{i, i+1} < \dots < c_{n-1, n} \,. $$
We claim subsequently that for $1 < i <n$, $\max_k f_k(x) = f_i (x)$ if and only if $ c_{i-1,i} \le x \le c_{i,i+1} $, that $\max_k f_k (x) = f_1 (x)$ if and only if $x \le c_{12}$, and $\max_k f_k(x) = f_n(x)$ if and only if $x \ge c_{n-1,n}$.
However, as was mentioned already above, the statement that $\max_k f_k (x) = f_i(x)$ corresponds to $n-1$ inequality constraints. But we claim above that only $2$ inequality constraints are necessary for $1 < i < n$, and only one inequality constraint for $i=1$ or $i=n$. Therefore, in order for the claim to be true, we must show that all of the $c_{i, i+k}$ for $k \ge 2$ are redundant for determining the value of $f$, i.e. the maximum of the $f_i$.
Note: the following arguments are much easier to follow if one draws a picture. (That's how I made them, by first drawing a picture, and then figuring out the formal logic based on the picture.)
We begin by showing that for any $1 \le i \le n-2$,
$$ c_{i, i+1} \le c_{i,i+2} \le c_{i+1, i+2} \,. \quad \quad \tag{*} $$
From this it follows that each of the $c_{i, i+2}$ are redundant for determining the value of $f = \max_k f_k$, since $\max_k f_k (x) = f_{i+1}$ if and only if $c_{i,i+1} \le x \le c_{i+1, i+2}$. By (*) this holds for $c_{i, i+2}$, which means that the relative ``position'' of $f_i$ and $f_{i+2}$ changes (from $f_i \ge f_{i+2}$ to $f_{i+2} \ge f_i$) inside a segment of the real line where the largest function is $f_{i+1}$. Thus this change in relative position makes no difference in determining the value of $f$, and we can ignore the inequality constraints defined w.r.t. the $c_{i,i+2}$ when finding the value of $f$.
Assume by means of contradiction that $c_{i, i+2} < c_{i, i+1} < c_{i+1, i+2}$. Then it follows that
$$ f_i(c_{i,i+2}) > f_{i+1}(c_{i,i+2}) \,, \quad f_{i+1}(c_{i,i+2}) > f_{i+2}(c_{i,i+2}) \quad \quad \implies \quad \quad f_i(c_{i,i+2}) > f_{i+2}( c_{i,i+2}) \,. $$
However, this is an immediate contradiction, since by definition $f_i(c_{i,i+2}) = f_{i+2}(c_{i,i+2})$.
Now assume by means of contradiction that $c_{i, i+1} < c_{i+1, i+2} < c_{i, i+2}$. Then it follows that
$$ f_{i+1}(c_{i,i+2}) > f_i(c_{i,i+2}) \,, \quad f_{i+2}(c_{i,i+2}) > f_{i+1}(c_{i,i+2}) \quad \quad \implies \quad \quad f_{i+2}( c_{i,i+2}) > f_i(c_{i,i+2}) \,, $$
which is again a contradiction, since by definition $f_i(c_{i,i+2}) = f_{i+2}(c_{i,i+2})$.
Since neither $c_{i, i+2} < c_{i, i+1} < c_{i+1, i+2}$ nor $c_{i, i+1} < c_{i+1, i+2} < c_{i, i+2}$ is true, we must conclude the desired result, namely that $c_{i,i+1} \le c_{i, i+2} \le c_{i+1, i+2}$.
The above can be considered a base case for $k=2$. The general claim will follow when we show that, for $k\ge 2$, the following holds for all of the $c_{i, i+k}$:
$$ c_{i,i+1} \le c_{i, i+k} \le c_{i+k-1, i+k} \,. \tag{**} $$
The equation (**) allows us to conclude that the change in relative position between $f_i$ and $f_{i+k}$ (from $f_i \ge f_{i+k}$ to $f_{i+k} \ge f_i$) occurs inside a portion of the real line where $f_{i+1} \ge f_i$ and $f_{i+k-1} \ge f_{i+k}$; i.e. where neither $f_i$ nor $f_{i+k}$ is the largest function. This again has the effect that their change in relative position has no impact on the value of $f$, and therefore the inequality constraints with respect to the $c_{i,i+k}$ for $k \ge 2$ can be ignored. Thus only the $c_{i,i+1}$ matter for determining the value of $f$, and it follows that the claim above is true, namely that for $1 < i <n$, $\max_k f_k(x) = f_i (x)$ if and only if $ c_{i-1,i} \le x \le c_{i,i+1} $, that $\max_k f_k (x) = f_1 (x)$ if and only if $x \le c_{12}$, and $\max_k f_k(x) = f_n(x)$ if and only if $x \ge c_{n-1,n}$.
As was hinted above, we prove the case for general $k \ge 2$ by induction, using $k=2$ as the base case. So assume by means of induction (i.e. the following is our induction hypothesis) that we have already shown that, for a fixed $k$, the following is true for all $1 \le i \le n-k$:
$$ c_{i,i+1} \le c_{i, i+k} \le c_{i+k-1, i+k} \,. $$
Then we seek to show that the following is true for all $1 \le i \le n-k -1$:
$$ c_{i,i+1} \le c_{i,i+k+1} \le c_{i+k, i+k+1} \,. $$
Let $1 \le i \le n-k-1$ be given. Assume by means of contradiction that $c_{i, i+k+1} < c_{i,i+1} < c_{i+k, i+k+1}$. Hence:
$$ f_{i+k}(c_{i, i+k+1}) > f_{i+k+1}(c_{i, i+k+1}) \,. $$
By the induction hypothesis, we have that $c_{i, i+1} \le c_{i, i+k}$ -- thus $c_{i, i+k+1} < c_{i, i+k}$. Then we have that
$$ f_i(c_{i, i+k+1}) > f_{i+k}(c_{i, i+k+1}) \,, \quad \quad \implies \quad \quad f_i(c_{i, i+k+1}) > f_{i+k+1}(c_{i, i+k+1}) \,, $$
which is a contradiction, since by definition $f_i(c_{i, i+k+1}) = f_{i+k+1}(c_{i, i+k+1})$.
Now assume by means of contradiction that $c_{i+1} < c_{i+k, i+k+1} < c_{i, i+k+1}$. Then we have that
$$ f_{i+k+1} (c_{i, i+k+1}) > f_{i+k}(c_{i, i+k+1}) \,. $$
By the induction hypothesis, we have $c_{i, i+k} \le c_{i+k-1, i+k} < c_{i+k, i+k+1}$; therefore $c_{i, i+k} < c_{i, i+k+1}$. Thus:
$$ f_{i+k}(c_{i, i+k+1}) > f_i(c_{i, i+k+1}) \quad \quad \implies \quad \quad f_{i+k+1}(c_{i, i+k+1}) > f_i(c_{i, i+k+1}) \,, $$
which is again a contradiction, since by definition $f_i(c_{i, i+k+1}) = f_{i+k+1}$.
Thus, we have proven what we wanted to show, namely:
$$ c_{i,i+1} \le c_{i, i+k+1} \le c_{i+k, i+k+1} \,. $$
This conclusion allows us to write $f$ explicitly as a piecewise linear function:
$$ f: x \mapsto
\begin{cases}
a_1 x + b_1 & x \le \frac{b_1 - b_2}{a_2 - a_1} \\
a_i x + b_i & \frac{b_{i-1} - b_i}{a_i - a_{i-1}} \le x \le \frac{b_i - b_{i+1}}{a_{i+1} - a_i} \quad \forall 1 \le i \le n-1 \\
a_nx + b_n & x \ge \frac{b_{n-1} - b_n}{a_n - a_{n-1}}
\end{cases} \,.$$
Best Answer
The proof is correct, although for the sake of argument you should clarify what $ri(dom(f))$ is in this case.
Yes, you need this assumption. It is automatically satisfied when $I$ is finite. When $I$ is not finite and you do not make this assumption, you could take $a_i=i$ resulting in $\sup_{i \in \mathbb{N}} f_i(x) = \infty$. Bounded should be in absolute sense, so $|a_i|\leq M$ and $|b_i|\leq M$.
When $I$ is uncountable you may need $\sup$ instead of $\max$, but the proof is still valid.