Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hazing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate considers 'Danny's Law' to shield callers who seek medical help during hazing incidents
Summary
The Missouri Senate considered a Good Samaritan-style change to the state's hazing law — called "Danny's Law" — that would protect people who call for or provide medical assistance during hazing incidents.
Senate debate on Senate Bill 167 centered on a proposed Good Samaritan-style addition to Missouri’s hazing statute intended to encourage bystanders to seek medical help when a student is in danger during an initiation or related gathering.
Senator from Celine, the bill sponsor, described the measure as "Danny's law," recounting a documented campus case in which a freshman was rendered brain‑injured after an alcohol‑soaked initiation. The sponsor said the bill is designed to remove a legal disincentive to call for emergency assistance: "We would much rather forego the prosecution if aid could have been rendered to their son or daughter," he said, urging colleagues to consider the human cost of delayed help.
Under the substitute presented on the floor, a person who reports a medical emergency, provides relevant information to 911 or campus security, renders aid and remains to cooperate with responders would be immune from prosecution under the state's hazing statute for that incident. The sponsor stressed the protection was limited to actions tied directly to reporting and aiding the victim and required cooperation with emergency responders.
Senators raised details about who the immunity should cover. The senator from the Ninth questioned whether everyone in a room where hazing occurs but who did not actively participate should be protected and asked whether the immunity should be broader than the "first caller" as drafted. The sponsor agreed to work on language and the clerk later recorded the bill as laid on the calendar for further drafting work.
Before the bill was laid over, the Senate also adopted a technical amendment offered by the senator from Jefferson to standardize pronoun usage in the draft. The amendment was procedural and grammatical in scope and was adopted without debate.
Senate staff will continue drafting clarifying language on the scope of immunity and the sponsor said he expects to return with refined language aimed at encouraging life‑saving calls and clarifying who qualifies for the protection.
