Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/18/2003 10:45 AM House JUD
Audio | Topic |
---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 176 - CIVIL LIABILITY FOR LIVESTOCK ACTIVITIES Number 2090 CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the next order of business would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 176(JUD), "An Act relating to civil liability for injuries or death resulting from livestock activities." Number 2087 SENATOR RALPH SEEKINS, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of SB 176, relayed that this legislation was introduced in the prior legislature and was crafted as part of a project by 4-H members. He mentioned that at the time, both he and his wife were involved in that project; that the legislation is patterned after Oklahoma law; and that if SB 176 is adopted, Alaska will be the last state to have a limitation of liability for livestock activity, though some states have "contributory negligence standards that apply directly to livestock liability." He noted that he has worked with the American Quarter Horse Association (AQHA) and other national organizations to ensure that SB 176 complies with what is happening in the rest of the nation, and that he is a member of the AQHA's public policy board. SENATOR SEEKINS said that SB 176 says a person assumes some degree of risk when in the vicinity of livestock, because livestock owners, even with the best of intentions, cannot completely prevent accidents from happening. He assured members that SB 176 does not protect livestock owners who act in an unreasonable manner; rather, by reducing some of the liability, the expectation is that an atmosphere will be created that will encourage more livestock activity. He noted that Oklahoma has a lot of livestock activity, which he attributed to its livestock liability statutes. He said he would appreciate members' support of SB 176. CHAIR McGUIRE noted that 4-H members visited with her last year in support of this legislation, and as a result of that and her work on the "Worldwide Special Olympics Campaign," she'd come to realize that many equestrian centers are reluctant to cater to handicapped individuals because of liability issues. She predicted that SB 176 will have profound consequences, adding that she really appreciated what the 4-H members had to say during their visit with her last year. Number 1892 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that although he could see the need for the bill, he did have questions regarding a couple of its provisions. He turned attention to page 3, lines 30-31, and said it would seems to say that the owner of an enterprise wouldn't be liable no matter how badly an employee acted. SENATOR SEEKINS clarified that it says the owner could not be held "vicariously liable" for the acts or omissions of a participant or livestock professional. He offered the following example: If someone were to come in there and do something with their animal that would cause ... damage to another animal, the sponsor could not be held liable, vicariously, for that action because you can't control the actions of other participants ... or of another professional. So I think it's just limiting the vicarious liability exposure there .... REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that by limiting vicarious liability, the legislature would be going further than it ever has before with regard to the issue of limiting damages. SENATOR SEEKINS remarked that people are looking for new causes of action, an example of which is using vicarious liability "to get into the deep pockets even though someone was not responsible for the action." He offered that the language on page 3, lines 30-31, "is just clarifying that, ... [that] if someone else causes damage and you weren't it, you can't be held vicariously liable for someone else's activities." He added that this language does not pertain to the behavior of employees. REPRESENTATIVE OGG mentioned that a good example of "this" is bull riding: "You own the bull and you put it into the county fair for people to ride on it, and this covers the activity of a participant or a professional who's going to get on that bull, and [if] he falls off of that bull, it's not your problem." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he now sees the point of that language. He then turned attention to page 4, lines 1-2, and noted that it says a person can waive his/her entire right to recover damages. Number 1715 SENATOR SEEKINS pointed out, however, that the damages that language is referring to are those that result from an inherent risk of a livestock activity, not those that result from negligence. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG then turned attention to page 4, lines 17-18, which lists one of the things that could be included as an aspect of the inherent risk of livestock activities, and which read, "the potential of a person to negligently engage in conduct that contributes to an injury or death during a livestock activity". He remarked that the other proposed aspects of inherent risk seem to focus on livestock or tack. SENATOR SEEKINS offered the example of an incident that occurred at the Alaska State Fair in Palmer during the Miller's Reach fire. A lot of livestock from the surrounding area were evacuated to fairgrounds and this resulted in very crowded conditions. One woman chose to ride her horse despite these crowded conditions, and when she fell off her horse because it got spooked by other livestock, she sued the fairgrounds. He said that the language on lines 17-18 is intended to address such situations. CHAIR McGUIRE asked Senator Seekins how he came up with the definition of "livestock". SENATOR SEEKINS said it was garnered from other states' statutory definitions and input from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). REPRESENTATIVE GARA, noting that peafowls and pigeons are listed in the definition, asked whether any cases have been brought because of damage caused by those creatures. Is there an explosion of pigeon liability litigation out there? REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that peacocks are vicious. SENATOR SEEKINS added that peacocks are dangerous in some respects because they are unpredictable. He pointed out that his primary concern is with fairs and expositions. If one goes to a fair or exposition and sticks a finger in the pigeon cages, for example, there is the inherent risk of getting bitten. REPRESENTATIVE GARA noted that the definition specifies that dogs and cats would not be considered livestock. SENATOR SEEKINS relayed that that specification is standard language in all other states' statutes. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, turning attention to the definition of livestock, asked whether there would be future bills to add other species to the list. SENATOR SEEKINS said he didn't think so because the proposed list is "pretty all-inclusive." In response to other questions, he indicated that "domestic cow" includes cattle, bulls, steers, and oxen; that elephants are not considered livestock; and that SB 176 does not pertain to circus animals. Number 1343 STEVE CONN, Special Projects Coordinator, Alaska Public Interest Research Group (AkPIRG), opined that SB 176 will lead to unintended consequences. He elaborated: This expansion of livestock to include rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, turkeys, chickens, and so forth, and [characterizing] them, as a matter of law, as being inherently dangerous, and then creating a duty on the part of a participant "to make a [reasonable] and prudent effort" - quoting from page 3, lines 17-18 - "to determine the ability of the participant to safely manage" it ..., this could find its way into pet shops [and] retail department stores. I just think that the original intent, which relates to things like rodeos, Palmer Fair, livestock shows involving big animals, takes you in the direction that you want to go. But the pictures that jump into my head ..., in fact, in some strange way, place additional duties on those that manage these inherently dangerous animals like the pony ride that finds its way behind the Sears mall every year for kids, because it does appear that the persons who are the potential victims here are also minors as well as adults. And so I think there's been overkill, in the drafting, to take you away - guide you away - from your serious concerns. And you are going to end up, by characterizing this vast reach of animals as being inherently dangerous because they're now considered livestock, in some strange ways, you may end up raising the bar of responsibility, rather than immunizing people who manage these sorts of situations in a "Wal-Mart," or in a pet store, or in a pony ride and other sorts of circumstances. So I would strongly recommend, despite the fact this bill has a long history, that it be held over and focused to meet the sponsor and the [4-H members'] fundamental concerns about large animals and the dangers inherent in using, showing, managing, and offering up to the public the large animals. ... Thank you very much. Number 1198 REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that the issue of the pony rides did make him wonder whether they should exempt little kids from the bill; for example, not have SB 176 apply to kids under the age of 13. SENATOR SEEKINS responded that the language in the bill is "fairly uniform language in all the other states," and that there have been no reports, of which he is aware, of unintended consequences. He added that he hopes that "parents or guardians would be responsible for whether they chose to put their child ... in a dangerous situation." He assured the committee that should a child get hurt as a result of the operator of a pony ride not paying attention, the operator would not be granted immunity under SB 176. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned his belief that SB 176 will help one of his constituents. CHAIR McGUIRE, after determining that no one else wished to testify, closed the public testimony on SB 176. Number 1101 REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS moved to report CSSB 176(JUD) out of committee with individual recommendations [and the accompanying zero fiscal note]. There being no objection, CSSB 176(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|