Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/04/1998 01:08 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 12 - IMMUNITY FOR EQUINE ACTIVITIES Number 2376 CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the next item of business, HB 12, "An Act relating to civil liability for injuries or death resulting from equine activities." The bill had been introduced briefly on February 2, 1998, but no testimony had been taken. REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS, sponsor, came forward to present HB 12, specifying that he represents District 8, Soldotna to Seward. When he had introduced this legislation a couple of years ago, there had been a couple of hearings; it generated a lot of interest around the state from people who run businesses relating to horses, including rodeos, riding stables and so forth. He advised members that he had been reasonably impressed with the problems those people brought before the committees during debate. Therefore, although the previous bill hadn't made it through the committee process, he had again introduced this legislation. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said this bill came about after a constituent traveling in the Lower 48 and attending horse shows saw waivers posted at some of the activities; there was a state statute cited. The constituent had asked Representative Davis whether he would check on it, which Representative Davis did. "And it pretty much is what is included in this legislation," he added. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS noted that while the legislation indicates equine activities, he mostly equates it with horse shows. He pointed out that many things can happen around animals. A lot of the riding stables and people who handle and deal with horses have a hard time getting proper insurance. It has been suggested that reducing some of the liability with legislation such as HB 12 will assist these people greatly. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS emphasized that a couple of years before, for the prior legislation, there had been a lot of testimony. He said he hadn't lined up that testimony yet for this bill. TAPE 98-9, SIDE B Number 0001 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS referred to his sponsor statement and advised members of the inherent risk of handling horses, including horses' reactions to loud sounds, for example, which are no fault of the owner if an injury occurs. He said in essence, HB 12 reduces the liability of the owners on accidents for which they have no responsibility. Number 0043 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked, in light of the previous year's tort reform legislation that tries to protect owners from ridiculous lawsuits, why this is needed. He also asked why something specific is needed for equine activities, as opposed to snowboarding or skateboarding, for example. He acknowledged that Representative Davis may not be prepared to answer at the current meeting. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS confirmed that he wasn't prepared to do that. He advised members that he had given that some thought and had initiated research on what inclusions in the tort reform legislation may relate to this. He noted that one draft of the tort reform legislation had included outdoor recreational activities, but it was deleted; he said he had not introduced HB 12 earlier because of that inclusion. Number 0097 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS recalled that a couple of years ago, there had been legislation relating to reducing liability of ski resort owners; he said this is similar. "But a good point, Mr. Chairman, and I will do that," he concluded. Number 0107 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to a letter in committee packets from the Echo Ranch Bible Camp, which says, "When accidents occur resulting from negligence on the part of the sponsoring organization, then the organization should take responsibility." Representative Croft then read from paragraph 3 of the sponsor statement, which says in part, "If the owner or trainer is negligent in properly caring for the horse or uses faulty equipment (such as the saddle), they would not be immune to civil liability." He asked, "Are those your understandings of that, of what we're trying to achieve with this?" REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS replied that it is a good point. He acknowledged there were some misstatements in the sponsor statement. He said it is certainly not the intent to take all the responsibility away from the owner of the organization, "only through negligence on ... other persons' part, but ... not on negligence on their part." Number 0152 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether this is the same bill "in form" that was before the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee in the Nineteenth Legislature. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said yes. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that it is a really wonderful bill. He pointed out that this is very similar to the "ski resort-type exculpa this body before. He asked whether Representative Davis had contacted any stables or equestrian academies in the Anchorage or Matanuska-Susitna area about this bill. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said he had not this year, but there are horse associations and equine associations around the state that they have contacted in the past. Number 0201 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he knows this committee wants to do its job, but he'd be happy to make a motion to move the bill. CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that there are two new members who didn't hear the previous legislation. Number 0217 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER recalled that there had been a bill that addressed a general inherent-risk-type of limited liability for outdoor recreational activities; he said he'd been told there is interest in having another such bill. He suggested that rather than hit the legislature with skateboard facilities, equine facilities, roller rinks and kayak operations, for example, they should just put them together and vote on it, once it is in the right form. Number 0245 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS responded that he had given that some thought even before pursuing this legislation. He said he would certainly support an all-inclusive bill of outdoor recreational activities. However, he had thought that would probably hit a major snag - not that this may not - in other committees. Number 0285 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said, as sponsor of the tort reform legislation and to set Representative Davis's mind at ease a little, that this didn't get into the tort reform bill because at that point they didn't need new ideas. It was not a qualitative indication of the outdoor recreational liability bill. "It was just that we couldn't handle any more issues in that one bill," he added. Number 0308 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS restated support for that concept. However, he noted, there may be additional legislation coming forward that addresses other individual outdoor recreational activities. He requested, with the committee's approval, making any suggested improvements to this and then moving it to the House Finance Standing Committee or someplace where it might sit until they see what the action and movement on a comprehensive bill might be. Number 0380 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said if that is the sponsor's wish, he is not opposed to moving it; however, he would suggest a conceptual amendment similar to the one they had done on the skateboarding bill. He explained, "I think both the skateboarding and this bill make a lot of sense in helping to define the inherent risks of an activity and clarifying that that is not a source of liability. But we did, in the skateboard bill, say that the negligence of the operator - if they're keeping a bad skateboarding place or letting it rust or whatever the situation is - we didn't mean to do that. We meant to clarify the inherent dangers of either riding a horse or riding a skateboard, but not to relieve them of liability for their negligence." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT continued, "So, the only amendment I'd have is one page 1, line 11. And I have discussed this with the sponsor, though he can state his own opinion. It's just to remove 'gross' there, to say negligence or recklessness or intention misconduct is not immunized, but keep the other parts that talk about the inherent risk." CHAIRMAN GREEN suggested this would relieve the burden of trying to prove gross negligence. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT replied, "Right, and conform to the statements, the understanding that at least one of the supporters - and I think the sponsor - had of the intent of the bill." Number 0403 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said he had no objection to that, noting that his non-objection is based on the definitions provided, which he said are from Black's Law Dictionary. He indicated he assumes that people dealing with cases on this would be referring to that dictionary. Number 0415 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said to balance that out, and, again, not thinking this would move that day, in the preceding paragraph (a), they establish some immunity from a civil suit because of the inherent risk, not because of negligence. He stated, "We exclude employees and agents, while we allow them to get sued in the next paragraph. So, I would suggest we'd want to put employees and agents in the protected group, as well as in the exposed group." He read from page 1, line 8, saying, "They 'may not recover civil damages from an equine activity sponsor, an equine professional, or an equine owner.' And I would think that you would want to extend that to employees and agents." Number 0475 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT offered a conceptual amendment to "remove the word 'gross' on page 1, line 11, and that we copy from page 1, lines 12 through 13, starting with 'equine professional, or equine owner,' through 'activity sponsor,' and move that into page 1, line 8, after 'sponsor,' so that the - if I understood Representative Porter's idea - that those definitions will be moved up and correspond together." CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there was any objection. There being none, that conceptual amendment was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he could attest to the fact that there was significant testimony about this in the Nineteenth Legislature. Number 0539 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to move HB 12, as amended, from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that unfortunately, they had no fiscal notes. He advised Representative Davis that it would be helpful if he could get a fiscal note in the House Finance Standing Committee. Number 0557 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected to the motion, saying he was maintaining the same objection that he'd had to tort reform. He suggested these questions are for juries. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS responded, "I understand the objection, but it certainly wasn't just last year when these concerns were brought up." Number 0627 CHAIRMAN GREEN requested a roll call vote. Voting for moving the bill out of committee were Representatives Croft, Porter, Rokeberg and Green. Voting against it was Representative Berkowitz. Representatives Bunde and James were absent. Therefore, CSHB 12(JUD) moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 4-1.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|