03/13/2002 03:50 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
March 13, 2002
3:50 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lisa Murkowski, Chair
Representative Andrew Halcro, Vice Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Joe Hayes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 45
Relating to the labeling of salmon food products.
- MOVED HJR 45 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 319
"An Act relating to civil liability for commercial recreational
activities; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 319(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 45
SHORT TITLE:SALMON LABELING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)KERTTULA
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/19/02 2307 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/19/02 2307 (H) FSH, L&C
03/04/02 (H) FSH AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 124
03/04/02 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/04/02 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/06/02 2483 (H) FSH RPT 5DP
03/06/02 2483 (H) DP: COGHILL, SCALZI,
KERTTULA,
03/06/02 2483 (H) KAPSNER, STEVENS
03/06/02 2483 (H) FN1: ZERO(H.FSH)
03/06/02 2496 (H) COSPONSOR(S): STEVENS,
COGHILL, SCALZI,
03/06/02 2496 (H) CRAWFORD
03/13/02 (H) L&C AT 3:45 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 319
SHORT TITLE:RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY LIABILITY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)KOTT
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/14/02 1958 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/14/02 1958 (H) L&C, JUD
02/11/02 2210 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON
03/13/02 (H) L&C AT 3:45 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
SARAH BRYNER, Intern
to Representative Beth Kerttula
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 430
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HJR 45 to the committee on behalf
of Representative Kerttula, sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE BETH KERTTULA
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 430
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HJR 45.
SUE ASPELUND
Cordova District Fishermen United
PO Box 939
Cordova, Alaska 99574
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 45, saying it
is an excellent example of state government supporting federal
government.
GERALD (JERRY) McCUNE, Lobbyist
for United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
211 Fourth Street, Suite 110
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 45.
LINDA SYLVESTER, Staff
to Representative Pete Kott
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 204
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 319 on behalf of
Representative Pete Kott, sponsor.
BRUCE BARKER, Vice President and General Manager
Mount Roberts Tramway
490 South Franklin
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 319 and gave
specific examples from the Mount Roberts Tramway operation.
MIKE WINDRED, Director of Operations
Alaska Travel Adventures
1122 Timberline Court
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 319 and gave
specific details about how the bill would apply to his company.
AL CLOUGH
PO Box 24603
Douglas, Alaska 99824
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as a private aircraft owner and
operator in favor on HB 319.
JOHN GEORGE, Lobbyist
for National Association of Independent Insurers
3328 Fritz Cove Road
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 319.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-33, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIR LISA MURKOWSKI called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:50 p.m. Members
present at the call to order were Representatives Hayes,
Crawford, Rokeberg, Halcro, and Murkowski. Representatives Kott
and Meyer arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HJR 45-SALMON LABELING
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 45, Relating to the labeling of
salmon food products.
Number 025
SARAH BRYNER, Intern to Representative Beth Kerttula, Alaska
State Legislature, came to the witness table accompanied by
Representative Kerttula, sponsor of HJR 45. Ms. Bryner
explained that HJR 45 simply supports actions by Alaska's
congressional delegation to acquire labeling of farmed and wild
salmon. This labeling would provide consumers with the
knowledge of what is in their food and where it came from, as
well as providing Alaska's salmon industry "the leg up that it
needs." She remarked that although Alaskans know that wild
salmon is superior to farmed salmon, the rest of the country is
just beginning to realize it. In this month's Vogue magazine,
for example, a food critic discusses his distaste for farmed
salmon. With labeling, consumers will be forced to choose
between a filet labeled "Alaskan salmon" and a filet labeled
"Chilean salmon."
CHAIR MURKOWSKI noted that the committee packet includes a host
of letters in support of HJR 45.
Number 056
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG requested a synopsis of the federal
legislation.
MS. BRYNER explained that the federal legislation is an
amendment to the "farm bill," which requires country-of-origin
labeling for salmon and that the [U.S.] Secretary [of
Agriculture] has the ability to label Alaska wild salmon as
organic. In further response to Representative Rokeberg, Ms.
Bryner related her understanding that the congressional
legislation originated in the Senate, but now is H.R. 2646.
Number 092
CHAIR MURKOWSKI pointed out that the [federal legislation] would
require country-of-origin labeling. Therefore, she asked how
salmon would be labeled as Alaska salmon.
MS. BRYNER directed the committee to Section 282(a)(C)(ii) and
said she wasn't sure if that required labeling by state.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI expressed the hope that Alaska wouldn't be
prohibited from labeling the salmon as Alaska salmon.
Number 117
REPRESENTATIVE BETH KERTTULA, Alaska State Legislature,
testified as the sponsor of HJR 45. Representative Kerttula
explained, "You could always say that it's Alaskan, but this
would absolutely require the labeling, so we'd get the other
country's fish label and farmed-fish label."
Number 124
SUE ASPELUND, Executive Director, Cordova District Fishermen
United, testified via teleconference, mentioning that she
represents the fishing fleets of Area E. Ms. Aspelund expressed
pleasure in supporting HJR 45, which is an excellent example of
state government supporting federal government. She noted that
the large growth in importation of farmed fish products competes
with Alaska's wild salmon and thus severely impacts the
viability of fishing in this state. Therefore, labeling will
help differentiate farmed fish from wild salmon for consumers.
Number 139
GERALD (JERRY) McCUNE, Lobbyist for United Fishermen of Alaska
(UFA), testified in support of HJR 45. He informed the
committee that after his last discussion with U.S. Senator
Murkowski, he understood that the labeling would be [from the
state of origin]. This resolution is a good step. Mr. McCune
recalled [that the federal legislation] called for the labeling
to include whatever is added to the fish, such as salt would be
added for smoked fish.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired whether anything in federal or
state law would prohibit a retailer from labeling Alaska salmon.
MR. McCUNE answered that he didn't believe so. He noted that in
Alaska some markets advertise Alaska salmon and some label them
as farmed, wild, or previously frozen wild. He related his
belief that Washington State is the only state with a labeling
law for salmon. This [federal legislation] speaks to the entire
U.S. He noted that much of the [salmon] from Norway is already
labeled with the country of origin, but that from Chile isn't.
MR. McCUNE, in further response to Representative Rokeberg,
explained that Washington State passed a legislative law, but
there was no money to implement it; he indicated it is now being
enforced. The labeling in Washington State refers to whether
the [salmon] is farmed or wild, and it doesn't prevent [labeling
from the country of origin].
Number 186
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG indicated perhaps Alaska needs labeling
similar to that of Washington State.
MR. McCUNE mentioned SB 208, which addresses the Alaska labeling
law.
Number 216
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES moved to report HJR 45 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, HJR 45 was moved out of the
House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
HB 319-RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY LIABILITY
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced the final matter before the committee,
HOUSE BILL NO. 319, "An Act relating to civil liability for
commercial recreational activities; and providing for an
effective date."
Number 226
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT, sponsor of HB 319, told the committee the
bill establishes responsibility for recreational [business]
owners and makes provisions for what they must do to take care
of individuals who participate in their activities. He said it
also places requirements on individuals. Furthermore, it would
protect business owners who provide for Alaska's tourists from
excessive lawsuits.
Number 254
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS), version 22-LS1260\C, Ford, 1/31/02, as the
working document. There being no objection, Version C was
before the committee.
Number 261
LINDA SYLVESTER, Staff to Representative Pete Kott, Alaska State
Legislature, testified before the committee. She told the
committee that over the past 20 years, many recreation-oriented
states have enacted statutes defining the "inherent risk
doctrine" that pertains to commercial recreational activities.
She said that doctrine is the common-law provision that
generally says a recreation provider has no duty to protect
participants from the inherent risks of recreation activities.
She drew a distinction between inherent risks and a provider's
negligence.
MS. SYLVESTER told the committee that providers can be held
responsible if a court or jury finds them negligent. The line
between negligence and inherent risk is blurred. She defined
negligence as a provider's failure to fulfill a duty owed to a
participant - generally, the exercise of reasonable care under
the circumstances. The inevitability of a certain level of
danger is recognized in law by means of the concept of inherent
risk. Ms. Sylvester said many providers must frequently fend
off the threat of lawsuits; fighting these claims is often very
expensive. Many states have enacted statutes as a result of
courts' inconsistent decisions. She cited some examples of
other states' legislation and referred to the Alaska Ski Safety
Act.
Number 310
MS. SYLVESTER noted that HB 319 seeks to decrease the
uncertainties regarding the legal responsibilities for injury or
loss. The bill establishes the responsibility for commercial
recreation businesses and says if that responsibility is
ignored, it is a case of negligence. The bill sets out the
responsibilities of participants as well. Ms. Sylvester
explained that commercial businesses are still responsible for
providing safety standards, training, and competent personnel.
The bill adds the presumption that a participant accepts the
inherent risks of a commercial recreation activity, and as such,
has played a part in any damages resulting from that inherent
risk.
MS. SYLVESTER reported that the addition to the bill addresses
nonpaying aircraft and watercraft passengers: it gives
certainty to owners of boats and planes who take guests out on
the water or in the air, and it shields owners or operator from
liability for the inherent risk. The bill defines a clear level
of negligence. She said the intent is to provide clarity and
set out the responsibilities of aircraft and watercraft owners.
It would protect the family of a pilot from losses due to
anything other than gross negligence.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT mentioned that even golf carries inherent
risks.
Number 347
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO raised the scenario of a charter plane
going to a fishing lodge where the plane trip is part of the
price of staying at the lodge. He asked: If an accident were
to occur, would the pilot and the person providing the air
service be shielded?
MS. SYLVESTER answered that if a person is going to a lodge with
someone who has a plane, the person going along is the guest.
If that person has a financial interest in the fishing lodge,
then the person is an agent of the lodge and is not a guest.
She said the section [she was recently referring to] is for
nonpaying guests with no financial interests.
Number 365
CHAIR MURKOWSKI followed up by giving the example of charter
operations near Lake Hood. She said the flight is not paid for,
since it is part of the price of staying at the lodge. She
asked if a person on the plane would be construed as being a
guest.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT responded that when a person flies out to a
lodge, the lodge has entered into a contract; the flight cost is
built into the cost of the lodge. He said he didn't believe a
person in that situation should be classified as a guest.
MS. SYLVESTER added that the pilot is paid by the lodge, not a
guest.
Number 389
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to page 3, line 26, and said
compensation requires being paid a "substantial" amount of
money, not a "token payment." He suggested the meanings of
those words might need to be considered.
MS. SYLVESTER said that was exactly the intent. She said the
word "substantial" was added so that chipping in for gas would
not be precluded.
Number 412
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked if the bill would apply to [municipal
entities like city-owned skateboard parks].
MS. SYLVESTER said no, it would only apply to commercial
entities. Other statutes apply to skateboard parks and
municipal immunities.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked if it would apply to the state fair
and to amusement parks.
Number 429
MS. SYLVESTER said it would apply to "outdoor recreational
activity," and it seems to fit. She added that it doesn't apply
to indoor recreational activities.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER revisited Representative Kott's reference
to golfing and asked if the owner of a golf course has a
responsibility to warn players of hazards. He also asked what
has been changed to make it acceptable [to the Senate.]
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he wasn't sure if anything had been
change that would make the bill acceptable to the Senate, but
added that Section 3 is what is new to the bill and may be more
palatable for the other body.
Number 451
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked why bowling and other indoor sports
weren't included in the legislation.
MS. SYLVESTER answered that it was at the request of the outdoor
recreational industry. There are other aspects of the statutes
that discuss the risks and responsibilities of bowling. She
said the attempt to keep the bill concerned with outdoor
recreation was tied to unimproved land and the uncontrollable
factors that take place on unimproved land.
Number 465
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked what the argument had been against
the legislation in the past.
MS. SYLVESTER responded that there were arguments from trial
lawyers that it is already in statute and therefore isn't
needed. There is confusion from the courts, she said, and the
bill would clarify the issue. She said there has been a general
nervousness of trial lawyers to limit their levels of recovery.
Number 476
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT concurred, adding that there was also an
argument that individuals who participate in commercial
recreational outdoor activities really thought they didn't need
to assume any responsibility for their actions.
Number 481
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said there is no mention of a need for a
waiver that would specify the risks and require a signature of
an acceptance of risk. He asked if there was any consideration
of a provision to deal with that.
MS. SYLVESTER replied that there are various ways of
communicating the levels of risk. She said an additional level
of security could be given [by a signed waiver] on file. Many
businesses don't have such waivers because of the large volume
of traffic. She said often signage is sufficient to warn large
groups about inherent risks.
Number 508
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said it isn't the prudent people who end
up in court with multimillion-dollar settlements. He suggested
there should be a standard in place whereby risks are stated and
the customer signs a paper. Representative Halcro said he would
support a requirement for a waiver stating inherent risks.
MS. SYLVESTER said in the case of particularly dangerous
operations, operators usually want something in writing. She
added that in the case of a salmon bake, it would seem silly.
Number 527
CHAIR MURKOWSKI pointed out that the bill provides that the
participant's responsibility is to learn about and expressly
accept the risk of the activity. She asked how "express
acceptance" should be defined.
Number 534
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked Ms. Sylvester: In the case of a
roller coaster operation that warned of inherent risk, if metal
fatigue were to result in an accident, would the operator be off
the hook because inherent risk was warned of?
MS. SYLVESTER responded that flying off a roller coaster because
of metal fatigue was not a foreseeable, normal event. An
attorney would be employed to find the negligence in that event.
Operators are required to maintain equipment, and they wouldn't
be covered by the bill. She said metal fatigue is not an
acceptable inherent risk.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD suggested it might be hard to prove.
MS. SYLVESTER disagreed, saying that metal fatigue can be proven
by a laboratory test.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked about a salmon bake scenario in which a
75-year-old person gets off a bus and trips on a rock. She
asked if this could be defined as a commercial, recreational
activity and, therefore, the person assumed the risk of walking
across a parking lot. If that were the assumption, what would
keep the statute from being used for anything that occurs
outside? She expressed concern about unintended consequences.
Number 571
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT agreed that Chair Murkowski had a point. He
referred to page 3, lines 19-21, saying the definition of
"recreational activity" is those activities undertaken outdoors
for the purpose of exercise, education, relaxation, pleasure,
sport, or as a hobby. He expressed his belief that a salmon
bake doesn't fall under that definition unless, as a part of it,
there is an excursion paid for in the price of the salmon bake
that involves a walk through the park.
Number 582
MS. SYLVESTER stressed, "It's the inherent risk of the event."
She said a salmon bake is in a "nature setting," and part of
that setting is unpaved, uneven ground. If one were to trip and
fall on the uneven ground, it would be a result of the inherent
risk of an outdoor event.
TAPE 02-33, SIDE B
Number 588
CHAIR MURKOWSKI remarked that there could be interesting
complications.
Number 582
BRUCE BARKER, Vice President and General Manager, Mount Roberts
Tramway, testified before the committee. He stated his support
of HB 319, which he said does an excellent job of identifying
the responsibilities of operators and participants. He claimed
he would like the bill to reduce the number of "ridiculous
suits" where someone falls and twists an ankle and it is the
fault of his business. He referred to Representative Crawford's
question about mechanical failure and said it is always the
responsibility of the operator. He added, "Whenever something
breaks, you pay."
CHAIR MURKOWSKI pointed out that skiers are provided with a
great many warnings on their ski tickets. She asked if tram
tickets come with any warnings.
MR. BARKER replied that there is a disclaimer on the back of the
tram tickets.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if there is any warning about walking off
the trail on the mountainside.
Number 550
MR. BARKER offered that there are so many things a person could
do, his company cannot warn against every potential hazard. He
showed the committee a sign used early in the season that warns
of avalanche danger. He said it is hard to warn people of all
the inherent hazards on the mountain. He expressed his support
of the bill because it will prevent many frivolous lawsuits.
Number 534
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked: If a person is skiing down a trail
and hits a crater and then falls and breaks a leg, would the
bill lay the liability on the person skiing?
MR. BARKER said he doesn't believe the bill has anything to do
with skiing. He pointed out that a separate statute addresses
the inherent risks of skiing.
Number 522
CHAIR MURKOWSKI raised the avalanche issue, asking Mr. Barker if
his company would take an extra step to tell people where they
should not go. She said a reservation could be held about HB
319 that companies might not "go that extra step" to ensure
participant safety; people would be expected to proceed at their
own risk because businesses aren't responsible for inherent
risks. She asked if his company would close off areas due to
avalanche danger.
MR. BARKER replied that it is illegal in most states to deny
access to public land. He gave an example from Jackson Hole,
Wyoming, where a ski area and the [U.S.] Forest Service were
sued for denying skiers access to public land. He said he
couldn't prohibit people from accessing [the top of Mount
Roberts] but could warn them of the inherent dangers.
Number 498
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked what the impact would be on his
business if signing a waiver were required. And if a waiver
were signed and the signer were killed in a accident because of
personal negligence, could the family of the signer sue the
operator because [the family] didn't sign the waiver?
MR. BARKER responded that it would be difficult to get 200,000
people to sign a waiver, and that a signed waiver "doesn't make
much difference."
Number 467
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked what the inherent risks would be for
taking a trip on the Mount Roberts Tramway. He said putting one
foot in front of the other is the responsibility of the
participant, not the operator. He said the bill seems to be
painted with a broad brusher than its previous manifestations.
MR. BARKER responded by saying people are testing the waters
when an incident happens.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said the first half of the bill was almost
identical to what it was in the previous two years. He offered
his belief that there are inherent risks in riding the tram,
including high winds and earthquakes. He asked Mr. Barker what
the company's reaction is when people are injured while on the
trails at the top of the [Mount Roberts] tram, and those people
come forward with claims.
MR. BARKER answered that much care and time are given to
training personnel in the area of risk management. He said risk
management is the key - "making them feel that you really care
about what their problem is."
Number 413
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked Mr. Barker what his experience has
been with people who don't have a command of the English
language. He asked if those people get the same protection.
MR. BARKER said efforts are made to use an interpreter.
Number 394
MIKE WINDRED, Director of Operations, Alaska Travel Adventures,
testified before the committee. He stated his support for HB
319, adding that he is president of the Juneau chapter of the
Alaska Travel Industry Association, which also supports the
bill. Mr. Windred said his synopsis of the bill is that it
would pass a portion of the burden for participants to recreate
within their own physical means and to be responsible for their
actions. It would also outline the responsibilities of the
commercial operators, while not absolving them of the duty to
operate in a prudent, safe manner. The bill has effects for
both operators and participants if they don't make prudent
decisions and [take prudent] actions.
MR. WINDRED said from the testimony in the previous years, he
found common issues such as defining inherent risk for the broad
range of activities. He called the current definition the
proper one: inherent risks are, or should be, apparent to an
ordinarily prudent person. Risks that fall into a gray area
ultimately might be decided by a judge or jury, and he said
legislation cannot cover all contingencies. He said the bulk of
claims are obvious ones and will be covered by the bill.
MR. WINDRED told members that negligence on the part of the
operator is another common issue he had noticed. This bill has
added the "Effects of violations clause" [AS 05.50.060], which
specifies that an operator must maintain equipment, inform
customers, train staff, and operate in a safe and competent
manner - or face civil liabilities.
MR. WINDRED offered that another common thread he has found is
defining "outdoor" versus "indoor" activities. He said most
outdoor activities deal with unimproved areas that preclude the
control of all factors present. Indoor activities are in a more
controlled environment. He added that participants often don't
want a completely controlled environment for their "Alaskan
experience."
Number 327
MR. WINDRED told the committee the bulk of the claims fit very
well within the legislation. Many people are looking to make a
little money or to pay for part of their vacation as a result of
poor choices on their own part. He said this drives up out-of-
pocket expenses as well as insurance rates. Mr. Windred told
the committee that presently, operators are bearing the full
burden of clients' poor choices and actions. He gave several
examples of incidents in which people made poor decisions and
came to his company for money.
MR. WINDRED stated that for most of his company's "riskier
adventures," signed waivers are required for participation. He
said salmon bakes and gold panning would not require a waiver.
He characterized those activities' risks as being mostly
inherent tripping risks. Requiring waivers for those types of
activities would exclude them from this legislation.
Number 254
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Windred if his company was
able to affordably insure for all the risks his company deals
with.
MR. WINDRED said the risks are insurable but the insurance is
expensive. He told the committee his company's current
liability insurance costs approximately $250,000.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked how much of a gross cost that is
for his company.
MR. WINDRED estimated it to be about 5 percent of gross
receipts. Most claims aren't large enough to fit within the
deductible and are taken care of directly. He said the bill
would help with those small expenses because the larger claims
will end up in court.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if his company had been to court
in recent years.
MR. WINDRED said his company had not been in court recently, but
had in the past.
Number 226
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG raised a concern among trial lawyers
that the bill would remove the public's rights to file suit. He
stated his wish to weigh the balance between impact on business
and the rare case of someone's being denied the right to sue.
MR. WINDRED replied that as an operator and participant in
commercial recreation in other areas, if he were involved in a
situation wherein he felt he'd been injured [due to] the fault
of an operator, this type of legislation wouldn't stop him from
hiring an attorney and seeking damages. The bill takes smaller
claims and makes people more accountable for their actions, but
doesn't harm the real issues out there.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made reference to [President George W.
Bush's] statement that Americans' "aptitude for lawsuits" is
affecting the nation's economic recovery from recessions.
Number 183
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked Mr. Windred how his company deals with
non-English-speaking participants.
MR. WINDRED answered that in the case of whitewater rafting,
guides can move people with a language barrier to the safest
part of a raft. If a person cannot be made safer and an
interpreter cannot be had, however, the operator would be
responsible for deciding whether to allow that person to
participate.
Number 145
AL CLOUGH testified before the committee. A private aircraft
owner and operator, he told the committee he often flies friends
and acquaintances around the area, but isn't allowed to receive
compensation, by federal regulation. He said the bill gives him
a degree of comfort when taking guests flying or boating. Mr.
Clough expressed support for the bill, which he characterized as
a "good thing."
CHAIR MURKOWSKI inquired if insurance companies ask pilots
whether or not guests will be flown, and if rates vary for those
who do fly guests.
Number 078
MR. CLOUGH said he doesn't carry insurance on his aircraft.
Most pilots find insurance prohibitively expensive. Rather, he
tells people his qualifications and that he is uninsured.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG requested an estimate of insurance rates
for aircraft.
MR. CLOUGH gave the example of his cousin's $100,000 airplane,
which costs over $10,000 per year to insure. He said that when
someone is flying from airport to airport, insurance can be
reasonable in price, but as soon as the plane lands on water or
unimproved landing areas, the insurance is no longer in place.
TAPE 02-34, SIDE A
Number 001
JOHN GEORGE, Lobbyist for National Association of Independent
Insurers, testified before the committee. He characterized
aircraft insurance as very different from auto or homeowner's
insurance because there are several types. There is insurance
for the airplane itself, liability, and "seat liability" for
coverage of passengers. He told the committee the bill won't
absolve the owner of damage done to a third party; it simply
protects the owner against those riding in the airplane or boat.
He said insurance for airplanes that land on mediums other than
at airports will be extremely expensive.
Number 076
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked about boat insurance.
MR. GEORGE said it depends on the boat and the desired level of
coverage.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the homeowner's insurance on a
25-foot boat would cover passenger liability.
MR. GEORGE answered that he didn't believe so. He said he
thought only very small boats would be covered under homeowner's
insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO offered that he thought boats under 16
feet were covered by homeowner's insurance.
Number 115
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked about "umbrella liability"
coverage.
MR. GEORGE said it has to do with underinsured motorist
coverage.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the bill would be helpful to
the average Alaskan involved in recreational flying or boating.
MR. GEORGE answered that it would be helpful. He likened the
bill to a "Good Samaritan" law and said it allows people to do
people a favor and not be held liable for guests' mistakes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that [AS 05.25.040] says "simple
negligence" provides for liability, but that the bill specifies
that liability would [arise] from "gross negligence."
Number 183
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO expressed support for the bill but said it
was incredibly broad. People need to take responsibility, he
offered, and business does not need to pay the price for those
who don't pay attention or who decide to do their own thing.
Representative Halcro said if the bill's intent is to cover low-
risk activities like salmon bakes, it doesn't go far enough.
Number 232
CHAIR MURKOWSKI cautioned that unintended consequences could
come from the bill. It allows individuals or businesses to
venture into areas of immunity that might not be prudent to
allow. However, she posed the question of how to let companies
do what they do; she gave glacier trekking as an example with
all of its inherent dangers. She said she didn't know how to
fix it.
Number 259
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said some immunity needs to be provided for
these companies, especially from smaller claims like [those for]
sprained ankles. Negligence of the operator is not going to be
removed, but it will be reduced based on the amount of
negligence on the part of the participant. He called it a
balance, and said the years of work on the bill have led to a
result that is "as close as we can get."
Number 281
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked about the balance between the
right to sue and protection of business from frivolous lawsuit.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT agreed it is a big problem.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed concern about a reference to
salmon bakes in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT replied that it isn't his intent to include
a salmon bake unless there is some sort of trail walking as part
of the recreational activity.
Number 317
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked how animals would be covered in the bill.
For example, would a horse-riding company need to warn of a
particularly mean animal?
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT put forward that an activity in bear country
would require a warning of that danger.
Number 346
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked about other states' legislation. He
said it might help in tightening the language.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said other states' laws had been looked at,
but Alaska is different from most states. He said there is no
model legislation.
Number 370
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO remarked that no matter how many ways a
situation is safeguarded, it is impossible to eliminate all
possible risks.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI suggested the bill is trying to legislate common
sense and personal responsibility.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG conveyed a personal example of tripping
on uneven ground and sustaining an injury. He asked
rhetorically whether uneven ground is a reason to sue. He said
the elderly often end up with tripping injuries.
Number 416
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER moved to report CSHB 319, version 22-
LS1260\C, Ford, 1/31/02, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 319(L&C) was moved out of the House Labor and
Commerce Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
5:50 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|