House Status:
Senate Status:
Senate Status:
Minutes for HB2065 - Committee on Judiciary
Short Title
Removing the duty of the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle to drive with due regard for the safety of all others.
Minutes Content for Wed, Jan 30, 2019
Callie Denton, Executive Direct, Kansas Trial Lawyers Association presented opposing testimony on HB2065. KTLA appreciates the opportunity in today’s hearing to express our concerns with HB2065 and the importance of the current policy and statute to Kansans. HB2065 amends K.S.A. 8 -1506, -1530, and -1541 by removing language that establishes the specific statutory duty of drivers of authorized emergency vehicles "to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons". Deleting language that explicitly and clearly imposes a duty of safety will make the statute vague. It puts at risk the claims of seriously injured innocent bystanders who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Amending the current law is unnecessary because it already protects municipalities and police officers and gives deference to their special law enforcement roles. K.S.A. 8-1506 requires innocent injured bystanders to prove wrongful conduct that is far more egregious than simple negligence and liability is significantly limited under the Kansas Tort Claims Act. Liability is limited under the Kansas Tort Claims Act to $500,000 total economic and non-economic damages; punitive damages are not permitted under KTCA. Officers, police departments, and communities are already protected more than adequately under current law. K.S.A. 8-1506(d) requires injured parties to establish officers acted with “reckless disregard”. On behalf of the members of the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association, Ms. Denton respectfully requested that the Committee oppose HB2065 and take no action on HB2065. Ms. Denton addressed questions for the membership. (Attachment 1)
David Morantz, Partner in the firm of Shamberg, Johnson & Bergman presented opposing testimony on HB2065. First, it is premature for the Legislature to pass HB2065 while litigation is pending and before the appeals are exhausted. I understand that HB2065 was introduced as a result of the Court of Appeals decision in Montgomery v. Saleh, 55 Kan. App. 2d 429 (2018) (my firm represented the plaintiffs). The defendant has appealed the decision to the Supreme Court and review has been granted. Even though HB2065 will not affect the parties in Montgomery, the Legislature should allow the appeals process to proceed before new laws are passed. We cannot presume to know how the Supreme Court will rule in Montgomery. Passing HB2065 would disrupt longstanding laws and policies found in “the Rules of the Road” portion of the Uniform Act Regulating Traffic found in Chapter 8, Article 15. Mr. Morantz explained the ambiguity of HB2065 will create confusion in the law and invite courts to re-interpret legislative intent. He sited a few previous cases (described in the attachment) and thanked the membership for the opportunity to testify on HB2065. Mr. Morantz respectfully requested the Committee to oppose to HB2065 and that the Committee take no action on HB2065. Mr. Morantz addressed questions from the membership. (Attachment 2)
