03/29/2001 01:10 PM House TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 29, 2001
1:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative Scott Ogan
Representative Drew Scalzi
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Mary Kapsner
Representative Albert Kookesh
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Vic Kohring, Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 68
"An Act relating to civil liability for transporting an
intoxicated person or for driving an intoxicated person's motor
vehicle; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSSSHB 68(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
SHORT TITLE: NO CIVIL LIAB FOR TAXI TRANSPORTING DRUNK
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)ROKEBERG
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/17/01 0111 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/17/01 0111 (H) TRA, JUD
03/19/01 0647 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
03/19/01 0647 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/19/01 0647 (H) TRA, JUD
03/29/01 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 118
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SSHB 68.
JANET SEITZ, Staff
to Representative Norman Rokeberg
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 118
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed concerns and questions regarding
SSHB 68.
KACE McDOWELL, Executive Director
Cabaret Hotel Restaurant & Retailers Association (CHARR)
(No address provided)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SSHB 68.
ROD PFLEIGER
Anchorage Downtown Partnership
245 West Fifth Street, Number 124
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SSHB 68.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-24, SIDE A
Number 0001
VICE CHAIR BEVERLY MASEK called the House Transportation
Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:10 p.m.
Representatives Ogan, Scalzi, Wilson, Masek, and Kapsner were
present at the call to order. Representative Kookesh arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
[For minutes on the Department of Transportation Presentation on
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Construction Projects, see the 2:02
p.m. cover sheet for this same date.]
HB 68 - NO CIVIL LIAB FOR TAXI TRANSPORTING DRUNK
[Contains discussion of HB 67 and other alcohol-related
legislation]
VICE CHAIR MASEK announced that the first order of business
would be SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 68, "An Act
relating to civil liability for transporting an intoxicated
person or for driving an intoxicated person's motor vehicle; and
providing for an effective date."
[The sponsor had before him a proposed committee substitute
(CS), Version F [22-LS0300\F, Ford, 3/26/01]; however, the
committee only had the sponsor substitute itself, SSHB 68,
Version C [22-LS0300\C], until later in the meeting.]
Number 0086
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG, Alaska State Legislature,
sponsor, explained that SSHB 68 provides immunity for taxicab
companies that provide a ride home for an intoxicated person or
drive the intoxicated person's vehicle home. Currently there
are programs throughout the United States, including in Alaska,
where taxicab companies [provide rides] at no charge,
particularly on nights like New Year's Eve, when it provides
"safety for the roads."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that in many instances, people are
reluctant to take advantage of these services because they would
have to leave their vehicles behind. This bill overcomes this
by allowing taxicab companies to drive the potential offender's
car home. It also grants taxicab companies legal immunity in
the event that an accident occurs, except in the case of
recklessness, gross negligence, or intentional misconduct. He
said these are legal standards that sufficiently protect the
public.
VICE CHAIR MASEK pointed out that the bill before the committee
was a sponsor substitute, SSHB 68. She asked what the changes
from the original bill were.
CHAIR ROKEBERG remarked that there was a proposed CS [Version
F].
Number 0316
JANET SEITZ, Staff to Representative Norman Rokeberg, Alaska
State Legislature, explained that SSHB 68 removes language in
the original bill regarding "licensed premises and owner of the
licensed premises also being brought in under the civil
liability section". It also adds language that covers the
driving of an intoxicated person's vehicle.
Number 0375
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN noted that he liked this bill, but asked
whether gross negligence was chosen, rather than just
negligence, because the former is a higher legal standard.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG agreed that it is a higher legal
standard, and said simple negligence is a relatively low
standard, such as when one drives without due caution or care.
Since taxicab companies would be providing a public service, it
warrants that they be granted a higher level of immunity, even
if a taxi driver gets involved in an accident in which there
normally might be some culpability. In this particular case,
the public welfare exceeds the right of somebody to make a claim
unless there was gross negligence.
Number 0579
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI asked if this bill is necessary
considering the "Good Samaritan law" that exists.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG remarked that this bill is really an
"insurance bill." It bars a personal cause of action against
the taxicab company or driver when engaged in this activity;
that legal immunity does not exist now. He went on to say that
he did not think the "Good Samaritan law" would cover this.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI asked, if taxicab companies charged a fee
for this service, whether they would be covered under this bill
without any added purchase of liability insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to subsection (a) [Version F],
which says the bill pertains to an "intoxicated person ... who
is not paying for the transportation". He remarked that he has
concerns about this portion of the bill.
MS. SEITZ said subsection (a) only covers the person who is in
the taxicab and not paying a fee for that ride. Subsection (b)
makes no mention of whether [the intoxicated person] is paying a
fee for his or her car to be driven home. She said insurance
companies she has spoken with thought that not having the
intoxicated person pay a fee for the actual transport of the
intoxicated person would be a better way to implement this bill.
Number 0684
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI asked if the person who is driving the
[intoxicated person's] vehicle home would be covered under his
or her own [insurance] company for the vehicle or any damage
that accrued, such as from running into somebody on the way. He
said he assumes the taxicab company would be responsible for
this insurance coverage.
MS. SEITZ commented that this is covered in subsection (b)
[Version F], which says, "The owner of a motor vehicle may not
bring a civil action to recover for damage to the motor vehicle
if the motor vehicle damage occurred when the motor vehicle was
being driven". She went on to say that subsection (c) bars
anyone else from suing the taxicab company for damage. The
theory is that the vehicle owner should be responsible and have
insurance that would cover the vehicle, and that the taxicab
company or employee who drives should not be held liable.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI remarked that there is a "gap" [in the
bill]. He said it is implied that the vehicle owner's insurance
would cover the responsibility and liability for the second
party - the taxicab company's employee - driving the vehicle
home. He indicated that even if there were a no-fault accident,
somebody would have to have liability on the vehicle.
MS. SEITZ stated that the owner would have liability regarding
his or her vehicle.
Number 0793
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to Representative Scalzi's
question regarding subsection (a); he said the concern about
compensation of payment was that anytime there was an
intoxicated person who paid for a taxi ride, the immunity would
"start to flow." He clarified that this is not what is being
attempted in this bill; it is only in conjunction with the other
vehicle being driven, so it is limited to when there is no
payment for transportation. If the [intoxicated] person shows
good sense and hires a cab to drive him or her home,
notwithstanding the vehicle, there would be no immunity in this
provision, since presumably the taxicab company would have its
own insurance. He noted that HB 67 would require mandatory
insurance levels for taxicab companies.
Number 0875
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked whether a driver who was not a
taxicab employee would be covered under the bill for driving an
intoxicated person's vehicle home.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he did not believe so, since this
bill is specifically for [taxicab companies]; however, he noted
that it was a point worth considering. He mentioned that while
researching this issue, it was discovered that Syracuse, New
York, has a shuttle service for intoxicated drivers. Due to its
large size, Syracuse was able to establish this service, paid
for by fees from various nightclubs and other establishments.
[The shuttle service] has these people on "retainers." [An
establishment] can call the shuttle service, which takes the
intoxicated driver and the person's vehicle home, using two cab
drivers. Therefore, this could be a private enterprise.
However, with the possible exception of Anchorage,
Representative Rokeberg said he does not think Alaska is big
enough to justify [a system like Syracuse's].
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if the two cab drivers worked for
the same company. She also asked, if [an accident] happened to
the car of the intoxicated person or to the taxi, whether this
bill would cover both.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said yes, the two cab drivers would work
for the same company. Also, this bill would cover both vehicles
as long as they didn't meet the higher standards of intentional
recklessness or gross negligence and were acting in good faith.
He added that there is a bar for a cause of action in court to
claim damages.
Number 1024
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked what would happen if there was "a
little bit of fault."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained that presumably the "client"
[intoxicated person] would have insurance, which should apply
because [the taxicab company] would have permission to drive the
car. He indicated the problem is that 15 percent of the state's
population does not have [car] insurance. Therefore, the desire
is to ensure that taxicab companies would not be responsible for
any damage that resulted from no fault of their own.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that if an inebriated person needs
a ride home, the [taxi] driver does not want to check to see if
that person has [car] insurance before taking the person home.
He referred to discussion in the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee about how to prove whether one has insurance.
Even if a police officer apprehends someone, he wondered if that
person could show proof of insurance. For example, one could
show an expired insurance card, or a card in which the insurance
was recently canceled. He then explained that the bill was
written to take into consideration that there may be insurance
coverage on the car being driven home.
Number 1129
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN described a possible accident in which the
taxicab driver unintentionally runs a red light while taking the
inebriated driver home. He said this would not be gross
negligence; it is simply in violation of a traffic ordinance.
However, it might involve culpability if a person were hurt or
killed. He expressed concern about the gross negligence
standard, and asked whether changing it to [simple] negligence
would "gut" the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he thinks it would. However, it is
something that can be taken up in the House Judiciary Standing
Committee, the next committee of referral.
Number 1308
An at-ease was called at 1:32 p.m. The meeting was called back
to order at 1:35 p.m. [Version F was distributed to committee
members.]
Number 1316
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a motion to adopt the proposed CS,
version 22-LS0300\F, Ford, 3/26/01, as a work draft. There
being no objection, Version F was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that Version F adds
subsection (c), the third-party cause of action provision.
MS. SEITZ explained that a third-party cause of action is when,
for example, "another person hits the taxicab driver, maybe
driving the intoxicated person's vehicle, [and] that person
doesn't have a cause of action against the taxicab employee or
company." This person would "have to go against the intoxicated
person's or his or her insurance or their uninsured coverage
under their insurance policy."
Number 1394
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if it was standard operating procedure
for law enforcement officers to call a taxicab to drive an
intoxicated person home, rather than to impound the car.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG remarked that he thought the person
would be told to find another way home. He said in many
instances, bar owners and law enforcement have an interest in
this [drunk driving]. He surmised that the majority of this
would come from a bistro owner, for example, suggesting to a
client that he or she should not be driving home. He indicated
operators are more sensitive to these issues since liability
insurance is very expensive and has not always been available.
He went on to say:
I think that the whole idea is that this is one more
alternative to keep the roads safe. And if the
program's in place and workable, it will be taken
advantage of. ... You can put yourself in a position
of the person saying, "Joe, ... you don't need to be
driving home, you had too much to drink, I can't serve
you anymore." And Joe says, "Well, Harry, I don't
want to go because I'll leave my car here and ...
this is a tough neighborhood. I don't want to leave
my car here." That's what it is all about.
Number 1484
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH asked whether Representative Rokeberg was
assuming that bar owners would pay for the taxicab rides.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG confirmed this statement.
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH indicated that he sees [this bill]
resulting in taxicab drivers' not being paid for transportation,
although they are in the business to make money.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG responded that under subsections (b) and
(c) of Version F, a person can't bring an action. The bill
doesn't restrict the possibility of compensation, however. He
said bar owners could pay it.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN remarked that he would support moving the
bill out of committee. However, it appears to enable drunks to
stay drunk by taking care of them. Nonetheless, because of his
belief that the bill will save the lives of innocent people, he
said it overrides his "gut instinct" about its enabling aspect.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG indicated passage of the .08 BAC [blood
alcohol concentration] legislation would help with this issue.
He explained that the BAC legislation would be a 20 percent
reduction in the standard for those under the influence [of
alcohol].
VICE CHAIR MASEK requested that Representative Rokeberg keep the
discussion focused on HB 68.
Number 1638
KACE McDOWELL, Executive Director, Cabaret Hotel Restaurant &
Retailers Association (CHARR), testified via teleconference that
this program began with the [Anchorage] Downtown Partnership,
Downtown License Beverage Association, CHARR, and Checker Taxi,
although other taxi companies have joined since then. She
provided some history:
We ran into a real roadblock when we were trying to
put this program together because of the insurance
laws on the taxicab. Now, I know you've discussed the
fact that, as we know, the insurance should go with
the car. So if a taxi driver is driving an
intoxicated person's car, it should be covered.
Our problem is not only worrying about the fact that
maybe that person wouldn't have any insurance; it was
also the fact that the insurance companies might deny
the insurance, saying the intoxicated person was not
in their right mind to make a decision to have someone
drive their car. The program was going along great
until we ran into this, and the taxi companies
absolutely could not afford the insurance it would
take to cover them for driving somebody else's car
home. So, that's where all this came to.
And then we came to Representative Rokeberg and asked
him if there was some way he could help us out kind of
on the line of a Good Samaritan bill. So that's kind
of where we are right now. [This is] the only problem
we're having [with this program]. This will be funded
through the industry and other corporations and also
through the bars and restaurants.
Number 1734
MS. McDOWELL informed members that this program began with
downtown [Anchorage] and then evolved to all over the Anchorage
area. She said it's almost impossible for someone to leave his
or her car in downtown Anchorage and take a taxi home because of
the risk that the car will be towed. Therefore, there is a need
to get the car home. Ms. McDowell also said she understood
Representative Ogan's concerns about enabling; however, she
thinks this program is a better way of keeping an intoxicated
person - especially one who is a little drunk and therefore
might be tempted to drive - off the road.
MS. McDOWELL noted that this program comes with a $40 charge to
the bar, restaurant, and other contributors. In addition, bars
and restaurants pay $20 each time this program is used.
However, this program is not going to be "just shoveling out $20
every time to enable people to stay in there and drink another
two or three drinks." It will be monitored well. There will be
training for taxicab company drivers and employees, and for bar
and restaurant employees including bartenders, waiters,
waitresses, and owners.
Number 1796
VICE CHAIR MASEK asked how many people have been using this
program.
MS. MCDOWELL replied that due to insurance reasons, taxicab
companies couldn't go through with this program [of bringing the
intoxicated person's car home along with the driver]. In
response to a further question, Ms. McDowell clarified that the
intoxicated person traveling in the cab is not expected to pay
for this program. It will be paid for through the industry and
contributions from other corporations.
MS. McDOWELL mentioned the possibility of someone's coming in
and taking it over as a for-profit program like the one in
[Syracuse] New York. She also referred to a nonprofit program
in Colorado in which the cars are not brought home. She
remarked that she knows of places outside of Anchorage that do
this now (taxis taking the person and car home); usually the car
arrives later than the person; however, concerns have been
expressed about insurance issues in doing these programs.
VICE CHAIR MASEK stated that in Anchorage during the holiday
season there has been a free towing service to take people's
vehicles home.
MS. McDOWELL commented that the person who initiated the towing
program wanted to help with her program until insurance issues
were resolved; however, she has been unable to talk with that
person. She said [towing] is relatively inexpensive, but it
would not deter many people [from drinking and driving] because
few people want their cars taken home by a tow truck with lights
flashing.
Number 1913
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked how many people Ms. McDowell
anticipates would participate weekly in this program.
MS. McDOWELL said about 70 people in the Anchorage area a month.
Number 1993
ROD PFLEIGER, Anchorage Downtown Partnership, testified via
teleconference, noting that he had just received the bill. He
thanked Representative Rokeberg for continuing with this issue.
He said it is truly a community issue that the Anchorage area
wants to solve in a positive manner, and he believes this bill
goes in the right direction. A lot of acts that seem to be
committed under the influence are unintentional, he noted. He
emphasized that the program, which is called "Off the Road," is
a community collaborative effort, as Ms. McDowell had stated.
MR. PFLEIGER pointed out that an individual could choose to pay
[the taxicab driver] or to give a gratuity, and money therefore
would change hands. On a different topic, he asked about
someone in a chauffer position doing the driving, rather than a
taxicab driver, and whether there would be flexibility if the
program grew. He urged passage of the bill.
Number 2123
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG remarked that he was very pleased to be
able to assist the Anchorage Downtown Partnership, which is
trying to promote the economic development and quality of the
atmosphere and services in downtown Anchorage. He also
expressed appreciation for the interest shown by CHARR and ARBA
[Anchorage Restaurant and Beverage Association] on this issue.
VICE CHAIR MASEK asked what the Department of Law's position on
the bill was.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied that to his knowledge, no
opinion had been received from the administration, although he
expected to hear one in the next committee of referral, the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON pointed out that this bill might not
include a fiscal note for the state, but that it entails
businesses' spending about $33,000 a year to be involved. She
said, "They're trying to fix a problem that's out there and
prevent needless possible loss of life, even under the
circumstances."
VICE CHAIR MASEK said it is encouraging to see the public is
trying to help with problems that "we" are facing in 2001 and in
the future.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG remarked that this bill would save
lives, and would save money from property damage. He said
usually he is very concerned about placing fiscal notes on the
private sector. However, in this situation, they are asking for
it, and are happy to contribute to this "whole issue about
removing drunk drivers from the street."
VICE CHAIR MASEK closed public testimony.
Number 2256
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON made a motion to move the CS for SSHB 68,
version 22-LS0300\F, Ford, 3/26/01, from committee with
individual recommendations and the attached zero fiscal note.
There being no objection, CSSSHB 68(TRA) moved from the House
Transportation Standing Committee.
VICE CHAIR MASEK called for an at-ease in order to hear a
Department of Transportation Presentation on Cost-Benefit
Analysis of Construction Projects. [The minutes for the
presentation are found in the 2:02 p.m. cover sheet for this
same date.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|