Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/08/2003 08:05 AM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
May 8, 2003
8:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Ralph Seekins, Chair
Senator Scott Ogan, Vice Chair
Senator Gene Therriault
Senator Johnny Ellis
Senator Hollis French
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 1(JUD)
"An Act relating to stalking and to violating a protective
order; and amending Rules 4 and 65, Alaska Rules of Civil
Procedure, and Rule 9, Alaska Rules of Administration."
MOVED CSHB 1(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 214(JUD)
"An Act relating to the recovery of punitive damages against an
employer who is determined to be vicariously liable for the act
or omission of an employee; and providing for an effective
date."
HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 224
"An Act relating to a tobacco product manufacturer's compliance
with certain statutory requirements regarding cigarette sales;
and providing for an effective date."
ITEM REMOVED FROM AGENDA
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 46(STA)
"An Act relating to printing of ballot titles and propositions
on primary election ballots."
MOVED CSHB 46(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 49(JUD)
"An Act relating to the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)
identification registration system and testing; and providing
for an effective date."
MOVED SCS CSHB 49(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 175
"An Act relating to civil liability for commercial recreational
activities and for guest passengers on an aircraft or
watercraft; and providing for an effective date."
MOVED CSSB 175(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
HB 1 - See State Affairs minutes dated 4/24/03 and Judiciary
minutes dated 5/3/03 and 5/7/03.
HB 214 - See Labor and Commerce minutes dated 4/29/03 and
5/1/03. See Judiciary minutes dated 5/6/03.
HB 46 - See State Affairs minutes dated 3/18/03 and Judiciary
minutes dated 4/9/03.
HB 49 - See Judiciary minutes dated 5/2/03.
SB 175 - See Labor and Commerce minutes dated 4/29/03. See
Judiciary minutes dated 5/5/03.
WITNESS REGISTER
Representative Cheryll Heinze
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 1.
Representative Ralph Samuels
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 214.
Ms. Sara Nielson
Staff to Representative Samuels
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 214.
Ms. Marsha Davis, General Council
ERA Aviation
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 214.
Mr. Mike Ford, Attorney
Division of Legal and Research Services Division
Legislative Affairs Agency
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 214 and SB 175.
Representative Tom Anderson
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 49.
Ms. Annie Carpeneti
Criminal Division
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 49.
Mr. Mike Winded
Alaska Travel Adventures
Alaska Travel Industry Association
9085 Glacier Hwy
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 175.
Ms. Linda Anderson
Alaska Travel Industry Association
9085 Glacier Hwy
Juneau AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 175.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-41, SIDE
HB 1-STALKING & PROTECTIVE ORDERS
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. Present were Senators
Ellis and French. The first order of business to come before the
committee was HB 1.
CHAIR SEEKINS recapped that Senator Therriault's motion to amend
HB 1 was before the committee in the last meeting and now he
wanted to withdraw that motion. He announced that they would
hold the bill until Senator Therriault arrived.
SB 175-LIABILITY:RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY/BOATS
CHAIR SEEKINS announced SB 175, version \S, to be up for
consideration.
SENATOR FRENCH noted that bungee jumpers were added to the list
in the S version. He asked what spectrum of activities they
would cover and if dude ranches were added.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if there were dude ranches in Alaska.
CHAIR SEEKINS said he heard there were several dude ranch
organizations around Denali Park.
SENATOR FRENCH asked if the liability of his son's Solid Rock
Camp would be affected.
CHAIR SEEKINS said he didn't know if that would qualify as a
dude ranch, but most of those activities were covered under HB
176, livestock activities, on the floor today. He said they
would put SB 175 aside temporarily.
SENATOR THERRIAULT arrived at 8:17 a.m.
HB 1-STALKING & PROTECTIVE ORDERS
CHAIR SEEKINS announced HB 1 to be back before the committee.
SENATOR THERRIAULT motioned to withdraw amendment 1. There was
no objection and it was so ordered.
SENATOR FRENCH asked if this parallels domestic violence
restraining order statutes for stalking victims and if there was
an emergency provision.
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE, sponsor of HB 1, replied yes, although
domestic violence does not have to be a component of the
stalking.
CHAIR SEEKINS added there is an emergency provision.
SENATOR THERRIAULT motioned to pass CSHB 1 (JUD) from committee
with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. There
were no objections and it was so ordered.
HB 214-PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST EMPLOYERS
CHAIR SEEKINS announced HB 214 to be up for consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS, sponsor of HB 214, explained that there
had been discussions of the definitions of management and
management agent in a previous meeting and that had been
incorporated into a committee substitute.
SENATOR THERRIAULT motioned to adopt SCS CSHB 214(JUD), version
\Q. There was no objection and it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said the substance of the bill didn't
change, but the definitions were put in. He said the language in
the bill is from restatements of the national standard, but it's
even closer with this version. The definitions out of the VECO
v. Rosemont case concerned sexual harassment outside the
workplace.
SENATOR FRENCH said the Alaska State Supreme Court reversed that
saying that you couldn't give punitive damages for harassment
outside the workplace.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS replied that in this bill "punitive
damages may not be awarded unless the employee was employed in a
managerial capacity and was acting within the scope of
employment", which should include Senator French's concerns.
MS. SARA NIELSON, Staff to Representative Samuels, said she
talked with the drafter who said it was better to leave the
definition broad, which would leave it up to the court.
SENATOR FRENCH said he was more concerned with language on line
14 that says, "...was employed in a managerial capacity and was
acting within the scope of employment." He thought the previous
clause had to do with a renegade employee.
CHAIR SEEKINS responded that if they are acting within their
scope of employment their employer can be vicariously liable,
but any foreman acting outside the scope of his employment and
authority should not subject his employer to vicarious
liability.
SENATOR FRENCH said he thought the committee should keep in mind
"that if we think we're adopting one rule when in fact the rule
has consistently been interpreted the other way, we'd be wasting
our time."
In the Laidlaw case where the bus driver was smoking marijuana
while she was on the job, you would believe intuitively that
that was completely outside the scope of her employment. No one
would believe that smoking marijuana would be part of a person's
job.
Yet, in the Laidlaw case, the court said, and I'll
quote it, 'Moreover, the fact that Laidlaw policy
explicitly prohibits smoking marijuana does not
insulate the company from liability. A wrongful act
committed by an employee while acting in his
employer's business does not take the employee out of
the scope of employment even if the employer has
expressly forbidden the act.'
That is partly why we are being very careful to limit
the liability in this bill to someone other than the
lowest level employee - I believe because of that
result. And so, what we're doing, we're exempting the
burger flipper, we're exempting the bus driver, we're
exempting the people from the very lowest rungs of the
business from making the employer liable.
So, for that reason, within the scope of employment,
is part of the battle, but managerial capacity is the
other part. No one in their wildest imagination is
going to say that the bus driver is a managerial
employee, because he or she doesn't direct policy,
doesn't make the call, doesn't direct a crew, isn't
fulfilling or shaping how the company does business.
For that reason I'm concerned about where we set the
line in this managerial capacity definition.
CHAIR SEEKINS said that the bus driver wasn't even legal to
drive at the time and although he didn't want to reargue that
case, he thought it was fair to say that in the future,
employers should be held responsible for decisions that were
made within the scope of authority, not of employment.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said that they have to draw the line
somewhere and if they draw it too low, the bill becomes
worthless and that puts the entire company at risk again.
"That's just not fair, first of all."
SENATOR FRENCH said he still had a problem with the definition
of managerial agent and wanted to know where in the VECO case
this definition came from, because page 10 of the decision,
footnote 12, says:
A management level employee has been defined as one
who has the 'stature and authority of the agent to
exercise control, discretion and independent judgment
for a certain area of business with some power to set
policy for the company.'
MS. NIELSON said that language could be used. "It wouldn't
change it that much."
CHAIR SEEKINS said that "agent" has a totally different
definition than "employee." An agent would indicate someone who
is not a regular employee, but is under contract or something
like that.
MS. MARSHA DAVIS, General Council, ERA Aviation, said the agent
is a very broad concept in law. Using the term here does not
restrict it from applying to employees. She said they didn't
want the perception that they were trying to deviate from the
restatement in terms of how the clause would be applied. This
version uses the structure of section 909 of the restatement
almost verbatim. The only difference is they inserted "employer"
for "principal" - the only substantive difference with the
attempt to define the concept of what is a manager agent. She
also noted where the restatement sets out the general principal
of law, there is a section called "comments" that adds examples
for clarification.
She said the fourth category is the one that hangs the employer
out the most. It says if the employee who did the wrongdoing was
at a high enough level, they are liable no matter how innocent
the employer may be. For that reason in the comment section it
says it's to deter an employer from hiring [questionable
characters] for important positions. You assume the employer is
acting within the scope and that the employer is vicarious.
"That is a strict liability for the employers."
But, when you step back to the next level, do they want to allow
the punitive damages to be hooked to the employer? The Alaska
Supreme Court has said no and it would only impose punitive
damages on the employer if they met one of the four criteria.
The restatement sets the standard quite high for strict
liability for punitive damages.
SENATOR FRENCH asked if she thought the VECO definition of a
management level employee was adequate.
MS. DAVIS replied it didn't give her too much heartburn. The
independent judgment is the critical piece in the definition.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked her, as an attorney who represents an
employer, if she was comfortable with the CS.
MS. DAVIS replied that she was extremely comfortable.
SENATOR FRENCH said he would be interested in drafting a
definition of managerial agent and management level employee to
comport with what they just discussed coming out of the VECO
decision.
CHAIR SEEKINS noted that Senator Ogan had some concerns and he
would hold the bill for him to comment.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS suggested after "employee" on page 2,
line 1, inserting the definition that is in VECO and eliminate
the rest of the sentence. It would read:
...means a management level employee with the stature
and authority of the agent to exercise control,
discretion and independent judgment over a certain
area of the business with some power to set policy of
the company.
He said that language comes straight out of the footnote.
SENATOR FRENCH and Ms. Davis agreed with that.
CHAIR SEEKINS said they would hold that in abeyance until
Senator Ogan could ask his questions.
HB 46-PRIMARY ELECTION BALLOTS
CHAIR SEEKINS announced CSHB 46(STA), version \H, to be up for
consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER, sponsor of HB 46, said it relates to
primary elections and offers voters a ballot option of having
just ballot propositions and not any candidates on the ballot.
SENATOR OGAN arrived at 8:43 a.m.
SENATOR ELLIS applauded the sponsor because he stated this bill
does not change the closed primary election system created by HB
193 in the last legislature.
SENATOR THERRIAULT moved CSHB 46 (STA) from committee with
individual recommendations and fiscal note. There was no
objection and it was so ordered.
HB 214-PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST EMPLOYERS
CHAIR SEEKINS announced that HB 214 was back before the
committee.
SENATOR OGAN said he was concerned with the vicarious liability
issue and that past tort reform limited liability so juries
couldn't award ridiculously high amounts in punitive damages.
TAPE 03-41, SIDE B
SENATOR OGAN asked for the liability to the employer to be
explained using an experience he had this morning where a
restaurant employee wasn't dressed appropriately and it raised a
question in his mind about whether or not the employee washed
his hands.
MS. DAVIS responded that under this bill:
...the employer is strictly liable for the medical
bills for all damages that flow from a patron because
he's sick. This does not change any of the underlying
[indisc.] of damages. Essentially, the public is
protected from harm and the employer is the deep
pocket no matter what those employees do - unless that
employee were outside the scope of employment - that
is not in a restaurant....
CHAIR SEEKINS said that in effect this isolates the company from
having to pay the punitive damages for the outrageous behavior
that was not authorized by the company of the employee who
performed the outrageous behavior.
MS. DAVIS added you would never see punitive damages come out of
the type of situation Senator Ogan described, but, if the person
was sick with typhoid and had intent to spread it, if the
employer saw the employee not washing his hands and didn't do
anything about it, he would be liable for punitive damages as
well.
SENATOR OGAN wanted to know the definition for managerial agent.
MS. DAVIS replied it matches the restatement section 909 of
tort. They are trying to capture someone who sets policy. She
explained the use of comments in the law.
MR. MIKE FORD, Attorney, Division of Legal Services, said he
thought the important thing was to be clear on how precisely
they want to define this and using the VECO definition would be
fine.
SENATOR OGAN referred to an incident where a helicopter pilot
employee didn't follow company training policy and got in an
accident to ask whether the company would be held harmless for
anything other than the strict liability under this bill.
MR. FORD replied that he wasn't sure that it would change
anything, because they are trying to draw a line between someone
who has the actual authority to create or modify the employer's
policies and he didn't think the pilot did have that authority.
CHAIR SEEKINS said the pilot didn't have the authority to change
company policy and they are strictly liable for the actions, but
they would not have to pay punitive damages against the pilot.
MR. FORD added that's assuming the pilot is just the pilot.
CHAIR SEEKINS said he likes to make the employee responsible for
his own bad behavior.
SENATOR OGAN said he struggles with that, because it relieves
some of the employer's responsibility to monitor what goes on.
CHAIR SEEKINS interrupted to say that they are strictly liable,
but not for the punitive damages.
SENATOR OGAN replied they have insurance for strict liability
and they don't always have insurance for punitive damages.
CHAIR SEEKINS said you couldn't insure against punitive damages.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked Mr. Ford whether an employer could be
responsible for punitive damages if they had a set of procedures
but training was inadequate.
MR. FORD replied that the question would be whether this person
has the power to set policy. If not, he would not be a
managerial agent.
SENATOR OGAN asked if, under this bill, the only way they could
be sued for punitive damages is if their policies are not right.
MR. FORD replied no, the question would be who did the
wrongdoing and what kind of employee were they. Did they carry
out policy or did they set policy? Every case rests on a
specific set of facts and trying to come up with a rule that
addresses all the cases is hard to understand. This reduces the
facts to answer that.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked if they were plowing new ground here as far
as restatement of torts and other state laws.
MR. FORD replied Alaska has some case law that is out of the
main stream and by adopting the restatement of torts; we're not
setting new law.
CHAIR SEEKINS thought that they were bringing Alaska into the
main stream of law with this bill and wanted to know if they
were eviscerating anyone's rights.
MR. FORD replied this bill does not set out in a bold new
direction.
SENATOR OGAN asked how many other states deal with vicarious
liability.
MR. FORD said he didn't know off hand, but he would find out. He
understands that 25 - 26 states do follow the restatements point
on this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS commented this doesn't deal with just
strict liability for compensatory damages, but if a company is
found directly liable, you're still on the hook for everything,
including punitive damages. This is only for vicarious liability
where you're not found directly liable.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if there had been an attempt to make
the employer strictly liable and the court made a ruling that
they are not.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS nodded yes.
SENATOR FRENCH thanked Representative Samuels for saying
"vicarious liability" as that is the correct term.
SENATOR OGAN said he was worried that this change in law would
cause an employer to be less than judicious about making sure
their employees are behaving within the scope of their
responsibilities.
CHAIR SEEKINS pointed out that it only concerned punitive
damages for an employee outside the scope of employment. He said
he would hold the bill as a courtesy to Senator Ogan.
HB 49-EXPAND DNA DATABASE
CHAIR SEEKINS announced SCS CSHB 49(JUD), version \S, to be up
for consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON, sponsor of HB 49, said there were some
concerns about what law enforcement can use DNA for in
investigations and about destruction of the samples after
exoneration or once someone has been convicted and how those are
retained. He heard discussions about the latitude of inclusions
of all felonies and misdemeanors.
SENATOR OGAN said several years ago, burglary was added to the
list of offenses for which DNA could be collected. This bill
would require DNA samples from a couple of high school kids and
lots of new offenses. DNA is not like fingerprints; it
identifies your genetic makeup and propensity for you and
members of your family for having certain diseases. He wanted to
know why it was important to expand this capability to so many
other crimes including some misdemeanors.
MS. ANNIE CARPENETI, Department of Law, supported HB 49 and said
they dealt with some of the privacy issues Senator Ellis raised
yesterday. Mr. Chris Beheim, Director, Scientific Crime
Detection Laboratory, Department of Public Safety, testified
that he has data that shows how having the information in the
bank from crimes you would not expect are necessarily related to
one another really helps solve serious crimes that are committed
after the initial one.
MS. CARPENETI said the privacy concerns were good ones, but this
bill answers those concerns. It's a limited purpose DNA bank -
only for criminal investigation and identification. It's also
limited to convicted offenders and volunteers. The information
in the data bank and the samples are confidential and it is a
Class C felony to misuse the samples or the data resulting from
them.
She recapped that the crime lab tests 13 sites on a DNA
molecule. It's identification information that doesn't provide
information about propensity for disease or family
characteristics. It's true that the samples are saved, but
that's to be able to double-check if a match is made. The only
other time they would be used would be if another serious crime
were committed where blood or semen is left.
SENATOR OGAN said DNA is collected from many different things -
urine, saliva and hair to mention a few. His concern is that
this is good as long as the government is good and doesn't
violate the Bill of Rights. But, there are people in jail now
who have not had due process and no one has access to who they
are; it's not public record and the trials are in secret. He
carried his concern further saying DNA information could be very
dangerous to a person like Saddam Hussein who might track down
families of people he didn't like.
SENATOR FRENCH said that no one would have their DNA taken until
a jury has said they are guilty of a felony or they plead to it.
So, he felt there was fairly significant protection in the bill
for collection of DNA. Statistics from Mr. Beheim indicate that
if you take DNA from people convicted of just drug crimes, of
the next crimes solved, 18 percent are sex offenses and 23
percent are homicides. So, people who have a drug conviction
frequently do a different and more serious type of crime and the
same for forgery. He felt that just taking samples from felony
criminals is a good balance.
On page 3, line 27, the bill allows DNA analysis to be used for
law enforcement purposes including criminal investigations and
prosecutions and he thought deleting "law enforcement purposes
including" would give some people comfort that you wouldn't have
renegade usage of the DNA.
He added that this bill allows DNA to be taken from a body part
at a crime scene or something like that.
CHAIR SEEKINS said they were thinking about inserting "deceased"
in front of "unidentified person".
SENATOR FRENCH approved of that.
SENATOR OGAN supported deleting "law enforcement purposes
including" and was concerned also with language on page 3, line
7, that said "or tissue sample from a crime scene as evidence or
from an unidentified person or body part". The "or" creates a
separate category.
MS. CARPENETI suggested saying either "law enforcement
identification purposes for identifying people and body parts",
because that's not necessarily included in a crime scene
investigation.
SENATOR FRENCH felt that identifying a lost person was a
separate issue from this bill.
MS. CARPENETI said on page 3, line 7 they could delete "and" and
on line 8, delete "person or body part" and insert "human
remains".
SENATOR THERRIAULT moved to adopt that as amendment 1. There was
no objection and it was so ordered.
SENATOR OGAN motioned to delete from page 3, line 27...
TAPE 03-42, SIDE A
"law enforcement purposes including".
MS. CARPENETI said she was concerned about identification
purposes. There was general discussion of wording.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked if there was an objection to doing a
conceptual amendment to use DNA for identifying unidentified
human remains. There was no objection and amendment 2 was
adopted.
MS. CARPENETI suggested adding "or child kidnapper" - after "sex
offender" on page 2, line 14 because that is a term the federal
government uses.
SENATOR THERRIAULT motioned adopting that as amendment 3. There
was no objection and it was so ordered.
SENATOR OGAN said he understood the connection, but he thought
it would be a better bill if DNA were collected for felonies
only. He said he was willing to make some sacrifices to live in
a free society where he could keep and bear arms and he was
willing to take the risk and delete DNA collection for
misdemeanors. He announced his support for the bill would be
contingent on that issue.
SENATOR THERRIAULT moved to pass SCS CSHB 49(JUD) from committee
with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal notes.
SENATOR OGAN objected. Chair Seekins called for a roll call vote
and the motion passed with Senators French, Therriault and
Seekins voting yeah and Senator Ogan voting nay.
SB 175-LIABILITY:RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY/BOATS
CHAIR SEEKINS announced CSSB 175(JUD) to be up for
consideration. He noted that bungee jumping and parasailing were
now in the bill.
MR. MIKE WINDRED, Alaska Travel Industry Association and Alaska
Travel Adventures, supported SB 175. He said he was speaking on
behalf of the industry and one of the larger companies. About 90
percent of the companies in the industry have five or fewer
employees, which means they have much less ability to absorb
increases in insurance costs. As nuisance suits go up and
insurance rates climb (theirs went from 10 percent of pretax
profits to 13 percent of pretax profits), it means that most of
their employees won't get a substantial pay raise. Most of their
company costs are fairly fixed and this bill would definitely
help them give their employees some of the money they had
planned on getting - for profit sharing and retirement and to
pay raises.
SENATOR OGAN asked if they provide those kinds of recreational
services.
MR. WINDRED replied they do everything - from lake canoeing,
hiking tours, the salmon bake, etc.
SENATOR OGAN asked if he thinks he has any responsibility to
inform people who are using their services that they are using
them at their own risk if this law is passed.
MR. WINDRED replied yes, they do have a responsibility to inform
participants of the inherent risks associated with the activity.
They have people sign a sheet of paper saying they are aware of
the risks and keep them for quite a while.
SENATOR OGAN said those sheets of paper are more like a waiver,
which is more like a psychological contract than a binding
contract, because at the end of the day, a person can still sue.
MR. WINDRED replied their sheets are not waivers; they are risk
assumption sheets. They explain both verbally and in writing
what the inherent risks are for that activity. They acknowledge
what those risks are and have the opportunity not to go at that
point. They are not waiving any rights to be able to sue.
CHAIR SEEKINS said he thought this bill limited any liability of
the providers of the sports events to negligence that is not
associated with the inherent risk of the activity.
MR. FORD said there is a provision on page 3, (c)(1), that
specifies negligence of a provider that was not the result of
the inherent risk.
SENATOR OGAN asked if it was an inherent risk if someone
incorrectly instructed you to put a piton in wrong for rock
climbing.
MR. FORD responded that is one of the key issues. Opinions can
differ on what would be an inherent risk. The court or another
reasonable person could agree with him or not.
This kind of legislation is hard to craft because the
rules we have occur in real fact situations where real
people exist.... but, to come up with a rule that
applies to all situations, you run into what I call
the generic language...
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if language on page 2, line 29, saying
that a person assumes inherent risk in a sport or recreation
activity whether those risks are known or unknown is in there.
MR. FORD replied that he thought they were trying to say they
are not going to depend on the knowledge of the person who
participates. This was not his language and he was a little
confused about its meaning. He felt that an inherent risk would
have to be known by the participant.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked where the language came from.
MR. FORD said it came from a woman in Anchorage and she came up
with a rewrite of the original bill.
MS. LINDA ANDERSON, Alaska Travel Industry Association, said
this language came from an attorney in Anchorage who has tried a
number of these cases.
CHAIR SEEKINS said there might some inherent risks someone might
not know about and they were trying to get to what is common
sense, although that differs from one person to another.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked Mr. Ford what would be lost if that
sentence fragment were deleted.
MR. FORD replied he didn't think it would greatly affect the
bill. It raises the issue of whether those risks are unknown or
known, but the question is to whom. He assumed it meant the
person who participates, but he felt if it was unknown to the
person, how could it be inherent.
SENATOR THERRIAULT moved on page 2, line 29, to delete ",
whether risks are known or unknown,". There was no objection and
it was so ordered.
SENATOR OGAN motioned to pass CSSB 175(JUD), version \S, from
committee with attached zero fiscal note and asked for unanimous
consent. There was no objection and it was so ordered.
CHAIR SEEKINS adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|