Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Gps Mapping Trespass topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee pauses bill that would create civil liability for mapping companies over private-road trespass
Summary
Senate Bill 1145 (substitute) sought to create civil liability in certain trespass cases when mapping or routing services direct drivers onto private roads; the subcommittee heard broad stakeholder testimony, but members laid the bill on the table to allow further work on language clarifying intermediary liability and enforcement standards.
The subcommittee debated Senate Bill 1145, which would clarify civil trespass liability when a person or a commercial delivery driver enters private roads after following directions from a mapping or routing service.
The sponsor said the substitute narrows the bill to require that a person be driving "on a private road for the purpose of getting to a public road," removing applications solely to private driveways and easing concern about incidental misrouting. The sponsor said mapping companies could avoid liability if they remove a road from routing services and that courts would decide whether a person’s purpose for being on a road justified civil liability.
Committee members and witnesses probed enforceability. Delegate Thomas asked how a mapping company could determine a driver’s purpose at the time of routing; the sponsor replied that a company could remove stretches of private road from routing and that the company is not liable if it has removed the road from routing services. Opponents including mapping-industry representatives (Google and TechNet) and the Chamber of Progress argued the bill’s language as drafted could hold intermediaries liable even when the user made the choice to trespass; Chamber of Progress suggested replacing "resulting in" with language requiring that the intermediary "direct" the user to commit trespass to impose liability. Google noted it will remove or mark private roads at a property owner’s request.
Rural stakeholders including the Virginia Farm Bureau supported the bill. Utility of enforcement and the appropriate legal standard for intermediary liability were recurrent concerns. After oral testimony and member comments that the measure needed additional drafting time, Delegate Thomas moved and the subcommittee voted to lay the bill on the table; the transcript records that motion and that the bill was "laid on the table."
