Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would grant limited immunity to community public‑safety programs; advocates and legal groups disagree on scope
Summary
House Bill 1897 would create a limited civil‑liability immunity for community based public‑safety programs, their staff and volunteers when core services are provided in good faith to people in behavioral‑health crises; the proposal drew support from providers and concern from lawyers and insurers over breadth.
Representative Edwin Obras (D‑33rd) presented House Bill 1897 on Feb. 12, which would provide limited immunity from civil liability to community based public safety programs and associated staff or volunteers when core services are provided in good faith to people experiencing behavioral‑health crises, complex behavioral‑health needs or with histories of legal‑system involvement.
"This bill gives liability protections to community based public safety organizations that work with those who are experiencing behavioral health crisis, have complex behavioral health needs, and or have histories of legal system involvement," Representative Edwin Obras said in his sponsor remarks.
Staff summarized the bill's parameters: immunity would attach only where (1) services are provided to a person in behavioral health crisis, complex behavioral‑health needs, or with a history of legal system involvement; and (2) the act or omission is done in good faith. The bill limits immunity to claims of simple negligence and does not extend to gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct. The bill also defines core aspects of a community based public safety program to include activities such as outreach, case management, providing shelter and housing, traveling among worksites, transporting clients and aftercare functions. Unlike some prior crisis‑response immunity laws, HB 1897 would include volunteers in its coverage.
Supporters — including community organizations that provide street outreach, crisis response and encampment assistance — urged the committee to adopt protections that would preserve programs' financial viability. Lisa Dugard and Faye Lopez Getke of Purpose, Dignity, Action (PDA) described difficulty obtaining or retaining insurance and said a single claim can cause programs to lose coverage. "If left unaddressed, lack of liability protection will threaten the viability of this very popular and widely supported field of work," Lisa Dugard said.
Opponents or skeptics raised concerns about the bill's broad definitions and unintended consequences. Alex Dietz, an attorney for the Washington State Association for Justice, said the bill's definition of "community public safety program" is broad enough, as currently drafted, to sweep in entities such as private security contractors, group care facilities and other providers that should remain accountable under ordinary negligence standards. "Granting immunity might potentially result in some reduction in insurance premium costs, but it does that at the cost to the population the bill is purportedly seeking to help," Alex Dietz said.
Committee members and stakeholders signaled ongoing negotiations to narrow definitions and address liability boundaries. No committee vote was recorded on Feb. 12; the item was considered in public testimony with multiple panels representing providers, advocates, and defense/insurance interests.
Ending: The bill remains in committee for further drafting; supporters and the sponsor asked the committee to refine definitions and guardrails to preserve well‑run programs while limiting unintended immunity for parties outside the bill’s intended scope.
