Legislature(2005 - 2006)BUTROVICH 205
03/01/2006 08:30 AM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SJR20 | |
| SB216 | |
| SB222 | |
| SB284 | |
| SB301 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 252 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 301 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 249 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SJR 20 | ||
| = | SB 216 | ||
| = | SB 222 | ||
| = | SB 284 | ||
SB 301-CHANGE OF VENUE IN CIVIL CASES
10:05:15 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS announced SB 301 to be up for consideration.
ROBERT FAGERSTROM informed the committee that he sent in a
public opinion message (POM) the day before and wished to add
that he served in United States Navy and in the Alaska Army
National Guard. He is aware of the uniform code of military
justice (UCMJ). He has served on a jury in Nome and he has also
been a defendant and a plaintiff. He said he knows the high cost
of litigation and does not believe that any Legislature has the
right to second-guess the American way of justice. He maintained
that the system does not need to be fixed and opposed the bill.
10:08:00 AM
MICHAEL SCHUEIDER, attorney, testified in opposition to SB 301.
He said the reason that court proceedings are held in the city
where the incident occurred is because the people who live there
have an interest in the conduct that occurs in their town. He
asked the committee to imagine they were legally crossing the
street when an out-of-town citizen runs them over and seriously
injures them. If SB 301 were enacted, they, along with their
lawyer and staff, doctor, and any other witnesses would be the
ones who would have to travel to the city where the offender
lived in order to hold the court proceedings.
10:10:53 AM
MR. SCHEUIDER said he is aware that the committee has heard some
outcomes that they might not approve of but the jury is the
entity that heard all the facts, not the committee members. He
said he recently tried a case in Bethel and the jury did not
award to the defense. He suggested the system works in most
jurisdictions in the United States. Insurance is a hugely
lucrative industry that gets paid to take risks and they make
money on those risks, he stated.
10:12:55 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT expressed concern over the unintended
consequences of the bill, but he disagreed with Mr. Schueider's
suggestion that the situation was fine because of the insurance
factor. He noted the committee has heard testimony that western
Alaska does not fit the bell curve and is lopsided to the point
where attorneys boast about large jury awards.
MR. SCHUEIDER responded the committee members must make certain
that things are out of balance before passing the legislation.
He respectfully suggested the committee was not hearing both
sides of the issue.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Mr. Schueider whether he was a member of
Alaska Action Trust.
10:16:10 AM
MR. SCHUEIDER affirmed he is a member, a past chairman, and a
frequent participant.
CHAIR SEEKINS said Alaska Action Trust attempted to demonstrate
that a defendant has a right to trial by its peers and a
plaintiff has the same right. He asked whether there was case
law that showed the plaintiff has an absolute right to a trial
by the plaintiff's peers and that a plaintiff gets to decide the
venue.
MR. SCHUEIDER responded the plaintiff is constrained by existing
venue rules. The circumstances and existing law define where
cases must be brought. He said it wasn't that plaintiff's have
an absolute right to choose venue, plaintiff's have the fact
that determine where venue is appropriate and the existing rules
provide fair venue for both parties in most settings.
10:18:59 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Mr. Schueider whether he agreed that the
Alaska rules of general procedure on venue are subject to state
statute, which could be modified.
MR. SCHUEIDER said by a two-thirds majority, yes. He said he
does not challenge the power of the Legislature but he contended
the bill was poor public policy and would generate many worse
outcomes than the current system.
CHAIR SEEKINS said he would look at Rule 3, which he said
subordinates the court's authority to change venue to the
Legislature without having to change the rule.
10:20:35 AM
JAMES MILLER, owner and general manager of Alaska Weather
Operations, testified in support of the bill. His company does
construction work for up to 60 communities in Alaska. He said it
was important to maintain impartial juries and that is sometimes
difficult to obtain due to village sizes and location.
10:23:38 AM
SENATOR FRENCH asked Mr. Miller to imagine being a landlord
whose tenants trashed his property to the tune of $5,000 and
then moved to another city. The landlord and his witnesses would
probably have to drop the claim because they would not be able
to handle all the travel costs to get to the changed venue.
MR. MILLER agreed that was a good point. He said it works both
ways. He suggested that the bill should state a provision for an
impartial jury.
10:27:22 AM
WILFORD RYAN, member of Alaska Air Carriers Association,
testified in support of SB 301. He said businesses should have
the opportunity to defend themselves in their home area.
10:30:45 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS held SB 301 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|