Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/18/2001 01:44 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 40
"An Act providing for the revocation of driving
privileges by a court for a driver convicted of a
violation of traffic laws in connection with a fatal
motor vehicle or commercial motor vehicle accident;
amending Rules 43 and 43.1, Alaska Rules of
Administration; and providing for an effective date."
DEAN GUANELI, CHIEF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT
OF LAW, explained that the legislation would revoke licenses
of those that violate a traffic law or regulation of the
state, which results in a death. Licenses would be revoked
for a year. He noted that there are a number of fatal
accidents on Alaskan highways. He observed that the criminal
penalty does not cover accidents where a traffic law or
regulation was violated such as running a stop light,
falling asleep at the wheel, crossing the center line, or
going off the road. Currently, the only penalty is a $300
dollar fine in the form of a traffic ticket. Victims'
families question how someone who caused a death can be
allowed to continue driving. He noted that, on page 2: if a
person is convicted of a violation of a traffic law and the
court finds that the person was operating a motor vehicle
and the driver's violation of a traffic law contributed to
an accident that caused the death of another person then
their license would be revoked for one year. He recounted
testimony and observed the affect on families.
Mr. Guaneli stressed that the question is, "should the state
of Alaska recognize that the poor judgment that is
exercised, whether you run a red light or whether you fall
asleep at the wheel, whether that justifies revoking the
license". He maintained that the answer to the question is
"yes". The legislation provides license revocation for one
year and also provides for a limited driver's license. The
court can grant a limited license to drive for purpose of
work or drive for purposes of providing care for someone who
is in need of the [driver's] physical care. There is
adequate protection to prevent loss of employment. He
asserted that it is time to recognize that there are a wide
variety of circumstances that reflect poor judgment, poor
driving and as a result, license action should be taken.
Vice-Chair Bunde asked if it would be a presumptive sentence
or mandatory minimum sentence. Mr. Guaneli stated that it
would be and noted that the Court would need to make certain
findings that the conduct contributed to the death. If there
were another license revocation (if the conduct put the
driver's points over the limit), the revocation would run
concurrently. It would guarantee that the sentence would be
at least one year.
In response to Vice-Chair Bunde, Mr. Guaneli discussed
presumptive sentencing. He pointed out that the
Administration is advocating for an appropriate sanction
were none exists.
st
Representative Lancaster asked why there is a September 1
effective date. Mr. Guaneli did not know the rationale for
the effective date.
Representative Harris felt that the legislation was
"unsettling". He observed that the penalty for the
identical conduct is changed depending on the outcome. Mr.
Guaneli pointed out that the law looks at the circumstances
and what results from the conduct in addressing sanctions.
Representative Croft noted that the legislation represents
"almost a strict liability consequence of a violation that
is proven". He questioned the lack of a mental state.
Mr. Guaneli noted that the state does not have to prove
intent for most violations of traffic laws. Mental states
that are generally associated with criminal law do not
applied to traffic violations. If the state could prove
criminal negligence then the current criminal negligence law
would pertain. The legislation would apply to a small set of
cases, perhaps a half a dozen cases a year that do not fall
under other criminal law. If the driver simply acts
carelessly, the only action would be a civil lawsuit. The
state could do nothing more than issue a traffic ticket.
In response to a question by Representative John Davies, Mr.
Guaneli clarified that the preponderance of evidence
standard is the usual legal standard applied in civil cases
involving negligence involving torts or contracts. The
penalty is in essence a civil penalty or administrative
action imposed by the court. The preponderance of evidence
standard would be the appropriate standard.
Representative John Davies observed that it is a relatively
low standard. He concluded that the action is between civil
and criminal. He questioned if it is appropriate to maintain
a civil standard when the case would be in between.
Mr. Guaneli explained that in most cases the court would
have found clear and convincing evidence and would be able
to make the [clear and convincing evidence] standard. He did
not think it [the change to clear and convincing evidence]
would make a practical difference.
Representative Davies expressed further concern with the use
of "contributed" on line 7, page 2: the violation of traffic
laws by the person contributed to the accident. He observed
that the person who was killed could also have done
something that "contributed" to the accident. Mr. Guaneli
noted that the [conduct of the person killed] does not
directly enter into the case. The court would discern
whether the violation of the traffic law contributed to the
accident and other negligence by another party is not the
court's concern. He argued in support of the language
contained in the legislation. Representative Davies pointed
out that the accident must "cause" the death. He expressed
further concern with the fact that there may be different
levels of contribution to the accident and questioned if
"contributed" should be changed to "caused". Mr. Guaneli
stated that he did not object to "substantially contributed"
to the accident. The legal system has a variety of terms
that it uses to weigh levels of culpability. All of these
concepts are taken into consideration. He explained that the
intent is not to turn these cases into large involved civil
lawsuits. The legislation is designed to be a simple
decision by a magistrate that the violation contributed to
the accident. It is not designed to be used in later civil
litigation. The legislation provides that the decision by
the judge is not to be used in other litigation.
Representative Davies gave an example of an accident: a
person at a stop sign has their car stall when they go into
the intersection. Another person comes over a hill, where
there is reduced sight and hits the stalled car. The stalled
car would be guilty of a traffic violation. The person that
came over the hill was speeding. He questioned if the driver
of the stalled car would lose their license if the driver of
the speeding car were killed. Mr. Guaneli was not sure. He
stated that if the violation were not a moving violation the
law would not apply.
HB 40 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|