Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Good Samaritan Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates expanding good Samaritan immunity after vehicle crashes; moves bill forward for further drafting
Summary
Representative Kohler presented House Bill 289 to extend good Samaritan protections in some cases where a person who causes a crash might be prevented from rendering aid; committee members discussed scope and a procedural motion advanced the matter for further work.
Representative Joel Kohler said House Bill 289 arose after a constituent raised a concern that current good Samaritan language could penalize a person who caused a crash and then stopped to help. Bill witness Bill Fahey, a former combat medic, described scenarios where a driver who caused an accident might want to render first aid but be uncertain whether the law would protect them.
"If I run a stop sign and I t bone Representative Miller over here, I caused the accident; I cannot stop and help him under the good Samaritan law in Utah," Fahey said, arguing the statute's exception for a person who "caused the accident" can discourage aid. He urged lawmakers to remove language that impedes willing, trained bystanders from helping.
Committee members probed the language's scope. Representative Thompson asked whether the bill's protections should cover non-motor-vehicle incidents such as e-bike crashes; Kohler said the draft focused on motor-vehicle law because that is where the current code language appears but agreed the issue could be broadened in amendment.
Chair Abbott expressed a different concern: that someone who causes an accident already has a financial incentive to help because of liability for injuries they caused, and that creating immunity for those individuals might create a gap in accountability. "If we say you're immune from liability for helping, well, there's nothing that that person gave in return because they already had a financial incentive to help," Abbott said.
Fahey and Kohler said they would work with committee members to refine language; Kohler asked colleagues to allow the bill to move while continuing to negotiate amendments. A procedural motion to move to the next agenda item on HB 289 passed on a roll call (committee recorded yes/no results). The committee did not adopt final language or send the bill to the floor during this meeting.
Ending: Sponsors said they will continue drafting changes to address concerns raised about scope and liability. The bill was advanced for further work rather than finalized at this hearing.
