Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Deicing Liability Immunity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Judiciary hears concerns about bill that would limit liability for de‑icing applicators
Summary
A witness and committee staff told the Senate Judiciary Committee the bill’s proposed immunity or presumption for certified salt applicators lacks defined Vermont safety standards and could restrict injured people’s access to recovery unless standards and evidence of effect are produced.
The Senate Judiciary Committee on April 3 heard testimony and extensive questions about S.29, a bill that would change liability rules for people and contractors who apply salt and other de‑icing materials. Witnesses and committee counsel told senators they had not seen Vermont safety standards for applicator training or evidence the proposal would reduce salt use or change private behavior.
The hearing focused on whether the bill’s immunity or presumption language would unduly limit injured people’s access to court. An attorney who identified himself as an experienced criminal-defense and personal-injury lawyer warned the committee that the legislation, as written, could create a new form of limited liability for large property owners and corporations and make recovery harder for people injured by negligent conditions.
The attorney said Vermont does not currently provide the kind of limited immunity this bill proposes and urged the committee not to adopt immunity language without a clear showing it is necessary. “We don’t give limited immunity to hospitals and doctors,” the attorney said, arguing that precedent in other areas did not support broad civil‑liability shields.
Committee members pressed the witness on how the bill would affect ordinary negligence cases and causation when snow or ice is one of multiple factors in an injury. The witness and a senator discussed the difference between negligence and gross negligence; the witness described gross negligence as a “blatant disregard for safety” and said it is a difficult standard to prove. A senator asked whether weakening the standard to negligence would affect access to relief; the witness said it would make him more comfortable but noted the core concern was creating a carve‑out that shifts burdens onto injured plaintiffs.
Committee counsel told senators the committee’s review found no Vermont safety standards the bill could rely on and said that absence prompted pushback. “Show us the safety standards, the Vermont safety standards before you expect us to then be able to really articulate to you in a thoughtful way,” counsel said, urging the committee to see standards and curricula before voting on immunity or presumption language.
Witnesses discussed alternative, less litigation‑centric incentives in the bill’s draft, including a training-and‑certification program that could create a rebuttable presumption that a certified applicator followed state standards. The witness said New Hampshire’s program, which was cited during the hearing, requires recordkeeping of how much salt is dispensed; he said that kind of measurement is among the only concrete outcomes proponents could point to about whether the program reduces salt use.
Municipal and state practices also drew scrutiny. Committee members noted that the Agency of Transportation (AOT) and other state entities already operate de‑icing systems with GPS and automated dispensing in certain situations, and asked whether the bill’s municipal coverage and immunity would meaningfully change behavior. One committee member described a recurring problem in which municipalities were told to comply with training requirements that did not yet exist, leaving local officials unsure how to proceed.
The committee did not take final action on S.29; members signaled they would continue discussion alongside other pending items. Senators were told the committee will resume consideration of adoption and guardianship legislation and will revisit a DUI proposal discussed at earlier meetings; the committee also plans budget-request hearings the following week and will compile a letter of priorities midweek.
The hearing record shows the central unanswered questions for S.29: what specific Vermont safety standards would apply, whether certification and recordkeeping would change corporate or municipal behavior, and whether any liability relief would meaningfully reduce overall salt use without unduly restricting injured parties’ access to courts.
