Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
02/23/2021 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB3 | |
| HB32 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 32 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 32-IMMUNITY FOR RV PARKS, CAMPGROUNDS
3:55:20 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 32, "An Act providing civil immunity to
recreational vehicle park owners for certain damages; and
providing civil immunity from liability related to the inherent
risks of camping."
3:55:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE RAUSCHER, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor, introduced HB 32. He paraphrased the sponsor statement
[included in the committee packet], which read in its entirety
as follows:
There are at least 152 privately owned RV parks and
campgrounds across the state of Alaska. House Bill 32
seeks to provide these facilities immunity from civil
liability related to the inherent risks in the outdoor
environment. This is similar to current Alaska statues
for inherit risk for the equestrian/livestock, skiing,
and sports and recreation industries.
The bill has a compressive list of natural features,
conditions, and activities that may pose a danger or
hazard and obligates the conspicuous signage and a
warning included in any written contract with a guest
of the campground.
The civil liability immunity does not apply in the
event off:
- Negligence, recklessness, or intentional misconduct,
or
- Failure to post conspicuous signage as warnings of
known hazards or conditions, or
- Failure to include the warning in a written
contract.
The bill recognizes that there are inherent risks in
camping that are beyond the control of the operator,
and that the warnings and signage may increase safety
for recreational users.
3:58:11 PM
JESSE LOGAN, Staff, Representative George Rauscher, Alaska State
Legislature, provided additional background on HB 32 on behalf
of Representative Rauscher, prime sponsor. He reiterated that
there are at least 152 privately owned RV parks and campgrounds
in Alaska; furthermore, the RV Industry Association (RVIA)
Economic Impact Study [included in the committee packet]
indicated that in 2019, RV manufacturers & Suppliers, RV Sales &
Service, and RV Campground and Travel accounted for almost 1700
direct and indirect jobs, $84 million in wages, and over $242
million in total economic output for Alaska alone. He pointed
out that Alaskans have unprecedented access to the wilderness,
which is one of the many reasons people visit the state. He
continued to note that Alaska's unique location is accompanied
by "unique dangers," including bears, moose, rocks, and
branches. He referenced a document that listed examples of
inherent risk lawsuits [included in the committee packet]
enacted on private campgrounds in other states, specifically
noting a claimant who was paid $608,867 after being attacked by
a bear at a private campground, as well as a claimant who was
paid $151,593 after alleging the campground failed to maintain
safe conditions on the premises, causing her to fall when the
walkway abruptly ended. He said the aforementioned examples
illustrate that private campgrounds can and do get sued for
injuries sustained for such things as tripping on natural
objects that occur inherently in the wilderness. HB 32, he
said, acknowledges that there is inherent risk in camping and
puts RV parks and campgrounds "on the same level" as skiing,
equestrian sports, livestock, recreational activities, and
camping. He cited the 1994 Alaska Safety Skiing Act, AS
05.45.010 [Limitation on Actions Arising from Skiing], which
prevents a person from bringing action against a ski operator
for an injury resulting from an inherent risk of skiing, and AS
09.65.290 [Civil Liability for Sports or Recreational
Activities], adding that HB 32 extends the same protections to
RV parks and campgrounds. He said the RV industry is a large
part of the state's economy, operating as part of the multi-
billion-dollar Alaska tourism industry. He conveyed that HB 32
would help protect these locally owned businesses from lawsuit
liability for things that are outside their control.
Furthermore, he offered his belief that the proposed obligatory
signage could help increase the safety and awareness of users.
4:01:40 PM
LAURA SAXE, Owner, Eagle's Rest RV Park & Cabins; Chair, Alaska
Campground Owner's Association, stated that HB 32 would help
small RV parks and campgrounds grow their business to full
potential by allowing more amenities for guests by lessening the
fear of lawsuits. She shared, for example, that an owner might
avoid installing firepits for fear of burns, playground
equipment for fear of child injuries, docks for fear of
drowning, or additional hiking trails for fear of bear attacks.
She emphasized that civil liability immunity is not being
requested for acts of negligence, recklessness, or intentional
misconduct; however, she urged the legislature to grant
campgrounds immunity from civil liabilities for {indisc.)
damages resulting from the conditions expected from camping.
She suggested that HB 32 provide immunity from civil liability
for the inherent risk in camping, similar to current Alaska
statutes for the inherent risk in equestrian, livestock, skiing,
sports, and recreational industries. Those inherent risks, she
said, include natural conditions, uneven terrain, bodies of
water, lack of lighting in the campground, weather, wildlife,
and campfires. She offered her belief that HB 32 would help
grow the outdoor experience that guests are looking for. She
added that as a park owner, her job is to meet and exceed her
guests' expectations for camping in the great outdoors. Despite
never having personally experienced these issues, she said it's
better to be proactive now rather than after the fact. She
reiterated that she is interested in inherent risk protection
not protection from negligence. She opined that HB 32 would
allow for more recreational activities for both Alaskans and
visitors.
4:04:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referring to subsection (c) on page 3, lines
6-10, sought clarification on the legal ambiguity that may exist
for self-pay locations. She asked if the liability protection
for such locations had been considered.
MS. SAXE said she has seen an increase in online check-ins since
COVID-19 to lessen the possibility of exposure and maintain
social distance. She explained that the online registration
process for Eagle's Rest includes a list of conditions, rules,
and regulations that, by clicking "accept," the user agrees to.
She noted that each campground has different rules and
regulations, as well as unique check-in processes. Nonetheless,
she added that every campground owner should have rules and
conditions that their guests agree to when they check in.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR suggested clarifying the bill language in
subsection (c) to encompass online check-ins.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Mr. Fisher for his input on the
matter.
4:08:24 PM
SANDON FISHER, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative
Affairs Agency, explained that HB 32 requires that every written
contract contain a warning. He offered his understanding that a
contract entered online "where a writing is produced" would
constitute a written contract. He added if the warning is
included on the written contract executed between the parties
online it would satisfy the requirements of the bill.
Furthermore, HB 32 would not require the warning be provided if
there is no written contract generated as drafted. He further
noted that the bill does not provide the consequences of not
including a warning in a written contract.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR proposed a scenario in which a written
contract, which asks for the number of guests, is entered into
without listing all the guests. She asked if the responsibility
falls to the individual who filled out the information
dishonestly.
MR. FISHER offered his belief that without specific facts that
would drastically impact any tort litigation, the campground
would likely have fulfilled its duty under the HB 32, as every
guest included in the contract received the warning. He added
that in the proposed scenario, an individual entered the
campground without permission, which could be considered
trespassing.
4:11:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked Ms. Saxe if she carries insurance on
her campground facility.
MS. SAXE answered yes, adding that she is required to have
general liability insurance on her park. She opined that HB 32
would lower rates at certain parks in some instances.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked what kind of limits Ms. Saxe carries
for her park.
MS. SAXE answered higher than "million/million." She noted that
for most parks, "million/million" is the minimum.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN questioned whether the insurance company
takes her history, or lack thereof, of claims into account in
terms of the annual premium.
MS. SAXE answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether Ms. Saxe is pleased with her
current rates or if her rates are unusually high.
MS. SAXE said she is pleased with her rates; however, as the
chair of the Alaska Campground Owner's Association, she shared
that other parks are constantly shopping around. She continued
to clarify that Eagle's Rest is more of an RV park than a
campground, whereas campgrounds surrounded by nature tend to pay
higher insurance premiums.
4:13:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR, referencing page 2, lines 30-31, sought to
clarify whether negligence or gross negligence is the
appropriate legal standard.
MS. SAXE deferred the question to Legislative Legal Services.
MR. FISHER explained that starting on page 2, line 27,
subsection (b) states that the immunity provided under
subsection (a) - the inherent risks of camping - does not apply
if the inherent risk of camping leads to an injury that occurs
as a result of gross negligence, recklessness, or intentional
misconduct. He defined gross negligence as something beyond
negligence that is generally reckless, willful, or wanton
misconduct. He noted that gross negligence is defined once
under statute, later adding that when courts consider the term,
they look at the statutory reference creating the standard and
the applicable facts related to the specific circumstance.
4:17:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR offered her understanding that gross
negligence is similar to intentional misconduct in that it
indicates more than carelessness, but also intent. She sought
clarification on the standards being set by using the language
"gross negligence, recklessness, or intentional misconduct," and
questioned whether the standard it sets is too high.
MR. FISHER relayed that determining negligence requires showing
that the plaintiff breached the duty of care that he/she owed to
the defendant, which resulted in damage caused. He added that
one must consider how a reasonable person would act in similar
circumstances and if the defendant acted outside of that,
liability can be imposed under negligence. Beyond that,
imposing liability under gross negligence requires considering
whether the defendant's actions were reckless, willful, or an
extreme departure from what a reasonable person would do. he
noted that in this case, the appropriate level of scrutiny to
apply is a policy call that depends on the will of the
legislature.
MR. LOGAN in response to Representative Tarr, pointed out that a
similar statute pertaining to ski liability, AS 05.45.020,
specifies that a skier may recover for the negligence of another
skier from the skier but not the operator. He indicated that in
a campground, if a camper's actions were negligent, then the
liability would fall on the camper rather than the
owner/operator.
4:20:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN, in reference to the line of questioning
between Mr. Logan and Representative Tarr, offered his belief
that the operative definition of negligence and gross negligence
is contained in the civil pattern jury instructions that define
both terms. He posed a scenario in which an individual parks in
the parking lot of a ski area, such as Alyeska, and asked
whether the gross negligence standard would apply to Alyeska's
parking lot or if the gross negligence standard would apply to
the mountain where ski activity occurs, and the negligence
standard would apply to the parking lot.
MR. FISHER offered his understanding that regarding ski area
liability, AS 05.45 [Ski Liability, Safety, and Responsibility]
carves out negligence with respect to the ski area operator. He
explained that if a ski area operator acts negligently with
respect to an inherent risk of skiing, the ski area operator
could be held liable, which is defined under AS 05.45.200.
4:22:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked if parking in a [ski area] parking
lot is an inherent risk of skiing.
MR. FISHER shared his belief that parking in the parking lot
would not fall under the definition of "inherent risk of
skiing."
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that under HB 32, the inherent
risk of skiing would make it difficult to sue Alyeska if an
individual were to "do foolish things" while skiing, or if a
child goes skiing in too much powder, falls upside down and
asphyxiates himself/herself; however, if an individual slips and
falls in the parking lot because the operator failed to sand the
lot correctly, the individual could sue the operator on a slip
and fall theory with a negligence standard of liability. He
further surmised that HB 32 would allow an individual who
slipped and fell while getting out of his/her RV to apply a
gross negligence standard of liability. He asked if that is
correct.
MR. FISHER confirmed that.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked why an RV park or campground should
be treated differently than the parking lot of a ski area.
MR. FISHER indicated that because it's a policy decision, he
would defer to the bill sponsor.
MR. LOGAN acknowledged that Representative Claman made a good
point that was not considered in the original drafting. He
noted that under HB 32, walking anywhere in the campground or
slipping on a wet surface or a root that sticks out on a path
would be included in the inherent risk of camping.
4:25:09 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
4:26:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN opined that these are insurable risks. He
pointed out that RV park operators who take care of their
facilities are the ones with few claims and lower premiums. He
said there are many RV parks with different conditions and
questioned "[getting] into the business" of adding a gross
negligence standard. He recognized that with respect to ski
area liability, the distinction between the parking lot and the
mountain is important, later adding that with very few ski
areas, once people get to the top of the mountain they go out of
bounds and do many things that, despite all the effort, is
difficult to control and hard to insure against. He noted that
in 1994, the ski industry was successful in passing a statute
that addressed those issues. He expressed his concern about
lowering the standard of liability from a negligence liability
to a gross negligence liability when there are many conditions,
both manmade and man-controlled, such as potholes, which are a
risk.
4:28:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE suggested including a distinction between
manmade construction and natural habitat in an RV park. She
asked if that would be a reasonable solution.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN opined that it's complicated. He posited
that the largest RV park in Alaska is five acres, indicating
that monitoring and controlling the conditions would be vastly
different than controlling the conditions on a thousand-acre ski
area. He acknowledged that there are issues, such as trees and
roots, that someone could trip over depending on how they are
maintained; however, those are things that ultimately,
campground owners have some control over, particularly within
the boundaries of land that they manage. He explained that
those are classically insurable risks in the list of lawsuits
provided by the sponsor. He noted, for example, that Fred Meyer
is insured against the risk of slip and falls. He expressed his
concern about campgrounds receiving substantially different
treatment than other commercial operators. He continued by
acknowledging that in his legal career, he has represented both
the defendant and the plaintiff in slip and falls, adding that
they are tough cases to win and usually, easier cases to defend.
4:31:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR recalled working on a similar provision for
farm tours, which involved extensive conversations about
negligence versus gross negligence. She advised exercising
caution with regard to setting a legal standard.
4:32:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if there was a particular event or
incident that highlighted this particular area of lawsuits and
tort reform.
MR. LOGAN said it was by request of a constituent in District 9.
He explained that the overall economic impact was so positive,
which compelled [the bill sponsor] to try to ensure that those
operations could continue to benefit the tourism industry in
Alaska.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted that the supporting document, which
listed inherent risk lawsuits, are all national examples. He
said it would be helpful to provide real and concrete examples
for additional context.
4:33:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked if providing civil immunity in RV
parks is a common practice in other states.
MR. LOGAN replied several states have enacted similar
legislation. He added that much of the drafting language came
from a national organization's public advocacy body. He offered
to provide a list of the requested information.
4:33:59 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 32 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 32 Sponsor Statement 2.19.2021.pdf |
HSTA 2/23/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB 32 Testimony Received as of 2.22.2021.pdf |
HSTA 2/23/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB 3 Sponsor Statement 2.18.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/15/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HSTA 2/23/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 Supporting Document - Alaska Health Department Reports Data Breach The Seattle Times 6.28.2018.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/15/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HSTA 2/23/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 Supporting Document - DHSS Cyber Attack Impacts More Than 100,000 Alaska Households 1.23.2019.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/15/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HSTA 2/23/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 Supporting Document - How One Alaskan Borough Survived A Cyber Attack CitiesSpeak 10.1.2019.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/15/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HSTA 2/23/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 Supporting Document - MSBD Press Release Mat-Su Declares Disaster for Cyber Attack 7.31.2018.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/15/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HSTA 2/23/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 Supporting Document - Pipeline Article Alaska Public Media 3.14.2018.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/15/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HSTA 2/23/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 Legal Memo 2.10.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/15/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HSTA 2/23/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 Supporting Document - CISA Critical Infrastructure 2.23.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/15/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HSTA 2/23/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 Testimony - Received as of 2.22.2021.pdf |
HSTA 2/23/2021 3:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 32 Testimony Received as of 2.22.21 Additional - Chicken Gold Camp.pdf |
HSTA 2/23/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB 32 FN LAW CIV TWC 2.9.21.pdf |
HSTA 2/23/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB 3 Fiscal Note DOA-OIT 2.21.2021 (Printed 2.22.2021).pdf |
HSTA 2/23/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB 32 Letters in Support 2.23.2021.pdf |
HSTA 2/23/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB 32 Research Alaska Annual Ecomoic Impact Fact Sheet.pdf |
HSTA 2/23/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB 32 Research Alaska State Economic Impact Table.pdf |
HSTA 2/23/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB 32 Reseach Examples of Inherent Risk Lawsuits.pdf |
HSTA 2/23/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |