Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agritourism topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House narrows agritourism sign rules, rejects amendment to limit farm immunity
Summary
Lawmakers passed a bill that lets agritourism operations use a single warning sign at the property entrance instead of signs at every activity. An amendment to limit the liability shield was defeated (38–74); the bill passed on final vote 78–33 after floor debate about liability and consumer protection.
The House approved legislation that changes how agritourism operators notify visitors of risks on farm activity sites, narrowing the current signage requirement so a single posted warning at the property entrance can cover multiple activities instead of requiring a sign at each activity.
Sponsors said the change reduces burden and cost for small, family‑run agritourism operations while maintaining a warning to guests. "All we're doing is taking the signage and putting one sign at the front of the property," the sponsor told colleagues. Supporters described the bill as conforming an existing liability framework while easing compliance costs.
Opponents argued the measure, as written, effectively provides a broad immunity and reduces reminders to visitors about specific hazards at individual attractions. Representative Harness (Jefferson) urged caution, saying the bill as written could make it harder for injured visitors to seek redress and asked to limit immunity to cases absent gross negligence. The House considered a floor amendment to narrow the liability protection; the amendment was defeated in a recorded vote, 38 yeas to 74 nays.
After further debate the bill was returned to the floor for final passage and the House approved it by recorded machine vote, 78 yeas to 33 nays.
What the law does and does not change: sponsors said existing civil‑liability language remains in statute; the bill narrows the sign placement requirement so a single posted notice at the entry to a registered agritourism property covers on‑site activities rather than requiring separate signs for each activity. Critics sought language to preserve more explicit avenues for recovery in cases of serious wrongdoing but did not secure an amendment.
Votes at a glance: the liability‑narrowing amendment failed, 38–74; the amended bill passed final passage, 78–33.
