Committee hears bill to grant civil immunity for entering vehicles to rescue vulnerable people or pets

The Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee heard House Bill 1046 on Jan. 17, a proposal to grant civil immunity to people who enter motor vehicles — by force or otherwise — to remove a vulnerable person or a domestic animal under specified circumstances.

John Brzezinski, staff to the committee, summarized the bill’s criteria. To qualify for immunity, a person must: (1) determine the vehicle is locked or no reasonable option exists for the vulnerable person or animal to exit without assistance; (2) have a good-faith, reasonable belief based on known circumstances that entry is necessary because the vulnerable person or animal is in imminent danger of harm; (3) ensure law enforcement is notified or 911 is called before entering the vehicle or immediately thereafter; (4) use no more force than necessary to enter the vehicle and remove the vulnerable person or animal; and (5) remain with the vulnerable person or animal in a safe location reasonably close to the vehicle until law enforcement, animal control, or other first responders arrive.

Brzezinski read the bill’s definitions: "domestic animal" is defined to include dogs, cats and other domesticated household pets, excluding livestock and farm animals; "vulnerable person" is defined to include anyone under age 18 or someone whose ability to perform normal activities of daily living or provide for their own care is impaired because of disability, brain damage, or the infirmities of aging.

Sponsor Representative Marie Levitt told the committee that 14 other states have enacted similar laws and said HB 1046 is intended to protect people and animals during extreme weather and other emergencies. "When folks are concerned about... if I break into a car ... I'm concerned about the damage that you're causing in another person's property and what that might mean for you and might be hesitant," Levitt said. The bill, she said, is intended to remove that barrier when a good-faith rescue is necessary.

Representatives raised operational questions. Representative Burnett and others asked whether the statutory requirement to "ensure law enforcement is notified or 911 called before entering the vehicle or immediately thereafter" accommodates situations where there is no cell phone service. Brzezinski said the bill’s language requires notification and does not include an explicit "reasonable attempt" exception; if there is no way to notify, a rescuer might not qualify under that element, he said.

Kat Kelly of the Animal Legal Defense Fund testified in support, stressing that animals can die quickly in hot vehicles and that requiring responders to wait for law enforcement can make rescue too late. Kelly also suggested there could be room for an amendment to require a reasonable attempt to notify law enforcement where cell service is unavailable.

Committee members expressed concerns about overreach and unintended consequences. Representative Jacobson said she worried the law might encourage unnecessary break-ins, noting vehicle features such as manufacturer "dog mode" that can keep animals safe. Representative Burnett and others recommended clear language and coordination with law enforcement and humane societies and noted livestock and commercial carriers are excluded under the bill as described in the hearing.

Staff and members also discussed how existing Good Samaritan and nonmedical care immunities interact with the bill. Brzezinski said current nonmedical-care immunity generally covers rescue but contains exceptions for willful or wanton misconduct, and the proposed bill is a separate, focused civil immunity directed at vehicle entry to rescue vulnerable people or animals.

No committee vote or amendment was recorded at the close of the hearing. Testifiers urged committee members to consider narrow, clear language to protect rescuers acting in good faith while minimizing unintended property damage.