Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Liability Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House restores 'negligence' language in outdoor-sports liability bill and approves measure
Summary
Lawmakers amended substitute House Bill 89 to reinsert 'negligence' into language governing inherent risk in outdoor sports (including equine activities), preserving comparative negligence standards and then passed the bill. Debate centered on liability allocation and disclosure obligations for operators.
The Utah House amended and passed substitute House Bill 89, which addresses the assumption of inherent risks in outdoor sports, including equine activities. A floor amendment reinserted the word "negligence," ensuring comparative negligence principles remain available in suits against owners or operators.
Representative Valentine, moving the amendment, said reinserting 'negligence' preserves a shared-responsibility standard between riders and owners. "By putting back in the word negligence, we then have our whole body of comparative negligence where you compare the negligence of the operator versus the negligence of the rider," Valentine said during the floor discussion.
Opponents warned the statute encroached on judge-made personal-injury law and could limit citizens' access to courts; Representative Rushton and others urged caution about statutory changes to long-standing common-law doctrines. Representative Cannon pressed for disclosure duties and criticized the substitute for not requiring operators to disclose known hazards; Cannon argued a disclosure provision would mitigate risk for patrons.
Floor debate included several examples and hypothetical scenarios to illustrate how the negligence language would function in practice; members acknowledged conflicts of interest where legislators ride horses or have ownership stakes. After amendments and debate, the House recorded passage of the bill; the transcript shows the bill received 59 affirmative votes and 10 negative votes and was referred to the Senate.
Next steps: House Bill 89 is sent to the Senate for consideration; sponsors indicated they would continue to work on clarifying the bill's interaction with disclosure obligations and the scope of inherent risks.
