Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/08/1995 01:34 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. 9
"An Act relating to recovery of damages from a minor's
parent or legal guardian when property is destroyed by
the minor."
Representative Therriault, the sponsor of HB 9, noted that
the legislation updates statutes written in 1957. He
explained that the legislation is intended to encourage
responsibility among parents and juveniles and to provide
recourse for victims who have lost property. The
legislation is based on the principal that parents or legal
guardians of juveniles who cause damages should be
monetarily responsible for the loss.
Representative Therriault recounted instances of vandalism
3
in Fairbanks schools. The legislation would increase the
amount a victim may recover from $2.0 to $10.0 thousand
dollars. The legislation also includes unintentional
damages that may be caused as a result of the intentional
action. He added that HB 9 allows part or all of the
individuals permanent fund dividend to satisfy a judgement.
Representative Grussendorf expressed concern that $10.0
thousand dollars may be a little on the high side.
Representative Therriault thought that the national average
that a victim may recover is between $10.0 to $15.0 thousand
dollars. He noted that revision of Alaska statutes in 1967
increased the recoverable amount from $500 hundred dollars
to $2.0 thousand dollars. He emphasized the effect of
inflation.
Representative Mulder spoke in support of the increased
recovery amount. He noted that his vehicle was stolen in
the past year by minors. He recalled that the damage was
$13.0 to $14.0 thousand dollars. He was limited to recovery
of $2.0 thousand dollars. He observed that the minor was
involved in other thefts after the incident.
In response to a question by Representative Brown,
Representative Therriault explained that a minor's and their
parent's permanent fund dividends could be garnished. He
observed that the dollar amount in existing statute is being
amended. The mechanism is not being changed. Permanent
fund dividend checks could be garnished in consecutive years
to pay the recovery judgement. By statute victims would be
allowed up to $10.0 thousand dollars in recovery upon
judgement from the court. A victim could petition the court
for a higher settlement.
Representative Brown asked the effect of changing the
language on page 1, lines 10 and 11 from "maliciously or
wilfully" to "as a result of a knowing or intentional act".
Representative Therriault used the example of an intentional
act of vandalism which leaves windows broken and
subsequently all the pipes in the house freeze. The vandal
would be responsible for the damage resulting from the
frozen pipes. He noted that all the terms are defined in
criminal law. He noted that "malicious" and "wilful" pre-
date the 1978 criminal code revision.
Representative Parnell questioned if the Committee wants to
make a person who has no custody or oversight rights
responsible for recovery. Representative Therriault
stressed that he did not intend to change current statutes
which determine who costs can be recovered from. He
observed that the State, as the entity of custody, would be
4
exempt.
Representative Grussendorf asked if a joy rider would be
responsible for damages incurred after a car that was taken
was discarded.
JAN RUTHERDALE, DEPARTMENT OF LAW advised that the joy rider
would be responsible for damage occurring to the vehicle
before it was returned to its owner. She noted that, but
for the actions of the joy rider, further damage would not
have happened. She emphasized that the victim needs to be
recovered.
Representative Martin noted the high rate of separated and
divorced families. He expressed concern that responsibility
be pin pointed to the parent that has custody of the minor
at the time of the act.
Representative Therriault reiterated his desire to see the
issue of custody addressed in separate legislation.
Representative Brown asked if the court would have
jurisdiction to determine what is the most appropriate
recovery under the circumstances. Ms. Rutherdale observed
that "or person having legal custody" is not meant to limit
the phrase "parents". Discussion ensued in regards to the
courts ability to determine who recovery will be judged
against.
Representative Parnell expressed support for an amendment
which would allow the court to determine who should be
responsible for any given point in time. Representative
Brown noted that a child could be visiting a parent who does
not have legal custody when the act occurs. The legal
guardian or parent may not have any control over the
incident.
Ms. Rutherdale noted that the victim can seek recovery from
either or both parents or person(s) having legal custody.
The court cannot determine who should provide recovery.
(Tape Change, HFC 95-18, Side 2)
GEORGE BINGHAM, STATE FARM INSURANCE thought that the
court's decision includes the determination of who will pay
recovery. He did not know the percentage of claims
involving minors pursued by the State Farm Insurance
Company. He stressed the effort involved in collection for
$2.0 thousand dollars.
Representative Brown noted that $10.0 thousand dollars could
be a hardship on poor families. Representative Therriault
5
stressed the hardship placed on the victim.
Co-Chair Hanley observed that the amount of recovery was
raised in 1967 to $2.0 thousand dollars. He accentuated the
impact of $2.0 thousand dollars in 1967. He noted that
recovery is being expanded to include "as a result of". In
addition, statutes governing permanent fund dividend
attachments are being revised to allow satisfaction of the
judgement.
JACK CHENOWETH, ATTORNEY, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES
clarified that the determination of who will be recovered is
independent of the amount recovered. He explained that the
plaintiff may bring action against the minor's father,
mother or both. Suit can also be brought against the legal
guardian or person having legal custody. If the suit is
brought against both parents and recovery awarded the
plaintiff may seek redress from either or both to pay up to
the ceiling established in statute through joint or several
liability.
Mr. Chenoweth thought that the minor could be sued directly.
In lieu or in addition to suing the minor the damaged party
can look to the minor's parents, legal guardian or person
having legal custody.
Representative Navarre noted that the judge does not have
discretion to limit who the suit can be brought against.
Mr. Chenoweth stated that the plaintiff determines the
identity of the defendant. If the defendant does not have
legal custody then the parent having legal custody could be
pled into the suit.
Representative Martin noted that most parents would have an
insurance policy.
Representative Foster recognized the high number of rural
children who are being cared for by relatives other than
their parents.
Representative Brown observed that "person having legal
custody" stands alone, as an independent source from which
recovery could take place. She added that "custody" does
not modify "parent". Mr. Chenoweth agreed with her
observation. Co-Chair Hanley noted that a plaintiff could
seek redress from both parents and the person having legal
custody.
Mr. Chenoweth clarified that if formal adoption has not
taken place the relative taking care of the minor cannot be
recovered against.
6
Representative Therriault emphasized that the decision to
birth a child brings responsibilities.
Co-Chair Hanley acknowledged concern by committee members
that the person or persons who has legal custody should be
the responsible party. Representative Martin reiterated
that the minor may commit the action while under supervision
of a parent having visitation rights. He stressed that the
person(s) having responsibility of the minor "at the time"
of the act should be responsible.
Co-Chair Hanley reiterated concerns detailed by committee
members. Mr. Chenoweth noted that some of the members'
concerns could be addressed through an amendment setting out
responsibility in regards to custody. Representative
Therriault reiterated his desire to address the member's
concerns in separate legislation. He emphasized that he is
attempting to raise the recovery ceiling not the mechanism.
He stressed the complexity of statutes governing the
mechanism of recovery. Representative Martin stressed the
need to reflect current societal needs in statute.
Representative Brown asked what is involved in establishing
paternity. Mr. Chenoweth observed that there is no
technical definition of "parent." The biological father of
a child could be included in a suit if their parenthood was
established in a paternity proceeding.
Representative Kelly MOVED to refer HB 9 to a subcommittee.
Representative Navarre asked if recovery could be
prioritized. Mr. Chenoweth agreed that recovery could be
prioritized. He restated that a parent whose child had been
adopted would not be responsible for recovery. The adoptive
parent would be substituted for the biological parent in
terms of any legal action.
Representative Therriault restated that his intent to change
the dollar amount associated with recovery, not the
mechanism involved. Representative Therriault MOVED to
report CSHB 9 (JUD) out of Committee with individual
recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Kelly WITHDREW his motion to refer HB 9 into
a subcommittee.
Representative Brown OBJECTED to the motion to move CSHB 9
(JUD) from Committee. She stressed that the issues of
responsibility rises to a level of debate due to the
increased dollar amount and ability to attach permanent fund
dividend checks. She suggested that the bill be held for
further consideration. Co-Chair Foster agreed that changes
7
in society warrant changes in statutes.
Representative Therriault WITHDREW his motion to move CSHB 9
(JUD) from Committee. Co-Chair Hanley noted that HB 9 would
be rescheduled for Friday, February 17, 1995.
HB 9 was HELD in Committee for further discussion.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|