Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Emergency Telephone Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves immunity for rural phone providers in 911 bill
Summary
The Utah House passed Senate Bill 139 to give limited immunity to local telephone providers and their employees for actions tied to providing 911 service in rural areas, excluding negligence and gross negligence. Supporters said the change will encourage small companies to build 911 systems.
The Utah House on Feb. 25 approved Senate Bill 139, a measure supporters said is aimed at encouraging small, rural telephone companies to develop 911 emergency service by giving limited civil immunity to providers and their employees for acts tied to emergency call handling.
Representative Allen, the bill’s sponsor on the floor, said the bill extends to operators and employees of local exchange providers the kinds of protections already available to public safety agency employees. "The goal of this legislation is to encourage these small independent telephone companies in rural Utah to develop the 911 emergency service," Allen said, adding that the immunity would not cover negligence or gross negligence.
Allen described the provision as enabling small companies — named during debate as examples such as Emory, South Central Utah and Beehive — to operate without "fear of being sued" if they disclose confidential numbers in an emergency or if equipment fails while trying to provide emergency assistance. "They're seeking immunity only if they try their best," Allen said.
Representative Evans and Representative Johnson both urged colleagues to support the bill, describing it as a necessary protection for rural cooperatives and independent companies that otherwise could be deterred from offering 911 service.
Voting was opened and closed that day; the clerk recorded 68 yes votes and no recorded no votes on the measure, and the House passed the bill. The bill was publicly read by title and its passage was entered in the House journal for February 1991.
The bill’s language, as explained on the floor, limits the immunity to actions related to emergency services and explicitly excludes protection for negligent or grossly negligent conduct. The bill’s next steps are the usual interchamber transmittal and enrollment processes.
