Legislature(2005 - 2006)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/14/2005 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB71 | |
| HB211 | |
| HB103 | |
| HB215 | |
| HB169 | |
| HB27 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 211 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 103 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| HB 215 | |||
| += | HB 33 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | HB 169 | ||
| = | HB 71 | ||
| = | HB 27 | ||
HOUSE BILL NO. 103
An Act requiring an actionable claim against the state
to be tried without a jury.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE KELLY, SPONSOR, stated that HB 103 would
make a small but important change to the manner in which
claims against the State are adjudicated. The doctrine of
"sovereign immunity", originally taken from English common
law, is familiar within the legal system. The doctrine
precludes the institution of a suit against the sovereign
[government] without consent. It is intrinsic to the legal
system.
The Alaska State Constitution addresses the issue of
sovereign immunity in Article 2, Sec. 21, when it grants the
Legislature sole authority to determine the manner in which
suits against the State are tried. Without that addition,
the language in Article 1, Sec.16, specifically refers to
"common law", presupposes that sovereign immunity is
absolute in Alaska.
Representative Kelly continued, although HB 103 does change
from the current standard of a trial by jury in a claim
against the State, it returns to the standard that was in
place until 1975. Since that time, there have been a number
of cases that have resulted in exorbitant jury awards
against the State. HB 103 would accomplish the intent by
making a direct statutory change. He urged support of the
legislation.
2:17:08 PM
HEATH HILYARD, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MIKE KELLY, offered to
answer questions of the Committee.
Co-Chair Meyer inquired if there was concern that a judge
would be harsher than a jury. Mr. Hilyard replied that had
been considered as a possibility. It has been a long time
since there was a trial decision by a judge that there are
no statistics available. Representative Kelly interjected
that could be the case and might not be inappropriate. He
stressed that the bill addresses the "deep pocket" concern
of the State and was worried about some jury awards.
2:18:58 PM
Representative Weyhrauch defended some of the "deep pocket
cases of the State". Representative Kelly noted that there
were a number of cases cited. He noted that a constituent
who is a retired lawyer requested the bill. Representative
Kelly mentioned that historically there have been some
outrageous rewards.
Representative Weyhrauch asked if the legislation had been
geared toward cases in Bethel and Western Alaska and not the
ones in the Big Lake fire areas. Representative Kelly
responded that his concern was with the smaller ones such as
the windsock case.
2:21:50 PM
In response to further queries by Representative Weyhrauch,
Representative Kelly commented that there are four states
that do not allow their state to be sued.
GAYLE VOIGHTLANDER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE),
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, ANCHORAGE,
offered to answer questions of the Committee regarding the
Department of Law's fiscal note.
Representative Weyhrauch commented on the cases sighted as
examples of jury awarding "deep pockets", and inquired how
many had actually been paid out. Ms. Voightlander advised
that the windsock case continues to be in litigation; the
other three have been completed.
Representative Weyhrauch referenced the case sighted in the
Bethel verdict and asked if there had been a motion to
reduce the amount of that verdict. Ms. Voightlander advised
in that case, there have been post trail motions. Also, the
search and rescue case was appealed and then cross-appealed.
The Department of Law asked for large verdicts from the last
few years.
2:26:15 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze mentioned an incident in Chugiak in the
early 1990's, ultimately, in which that woman received a
settlement. He asked how that case would have been affected
through the proposed statutory change. Ms. Voightlander
explained that case was tried with the State as the
defendant. A negotiated settlement amount was determined.
If HB 103 had been in effect, a judge rather than the jury
of twelve would have deliberated the case.
2:29:26 PM
DOUG WOOLIVER, ADMINISTRATIVE ATTORNEY, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM,
noted that the Courts anticipate a $16 thousand dollar
savings with implementation of the legislation. That amount
was determined by figuring out how many jury trials there
were in the last five years. There have been approximately
20 cases during that time. He checked all costs associated
with those trials, which averaged approximately $4 thousand
dollars per trial.
2:31:10 PM
Representative Weyhrauch MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #1, adding
a new sentence on Page 1, Line 5, "the State may request a
jury trial under this subsection". Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED.
Representative Kelly noted that he did not object to the
amendment. Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There
being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment #1 was adopted.
2:33:27 PM
Representative Kelly MOVED to REPORT CS HB 103 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. Representative Croft OBJECTED.
Representative Croft commented that he did not like
supporting the taking of people's rights away. There is a
reason we have a constitutional right to a jury trail. He
maintained that the right to take a case before peers and
people not employed by the government, is important. The
government has gotten so pervasive; it can determinately
affect a person's life. Representative Croft thought it
would be un-wise to pass the proposed legislation since it
goes against our country's history. He reiterated that he
did not support the bill.
Representative Weyhrauch observed that there is a right in
this society to a jury trial. A jury is made up of a broad
section of people. He sited a case, which he litigated and
which he had requested a jury trial. The case ultimately
settled with the jury's verdict against the State. There
were fees and costs built into that cost. There are
instances in which the State will have to pay; however,
within the context of a jury trial, there is an appeal
process.
The State, currently is immune and cannot award damages
against the State. Right now, when a case appears and there
is a punitive damage award, the State gets half of that
award. He emphasized that sometimes, the State should pay,
as there is gross negligence. Sometimes the verdict ends up
with the person getting fired. Representative Weyhrauch
believed that juried trials usually end up with society
benefiting as a whole. He clarified that he does not
distrust judges, however, sometimes the State rightfully
should pay.
2:40:49 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze pointed out his history and voting record
for legal reform measures, however was concerned with the
proposed legislation. He stated that he respects the intent
but was not comfortable with the concept of "deep pockets".
Representative Kelly interjected that the present debate
highlights the difficult issue being addressed through the
legislation and acknowledged the "heart" of that struggle.
He believed that HB 103 was a "good bill" and would save the
State money and abuse.
2:44:06 PM
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to MOVE the bill
from Committee.
IN FAVOR: Holm, Kelly, Stoltze, Weyhrauch, Foster,
Hawker, Meyer, Chenault
OPPOSED: Moses, Croft
Representative Joule was not present for the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (8-2).
CS HB 103 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with fiscal note #1 by the Alaska Court
System and fiscal note #2 by the Department of Law.
2:45:11 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|