Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Liability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House refuses to concur with Senate on 'nominal fee' language, sends HB 11 back for conference
Summary
Lawmakers rejected Senate language restoring liability protections when landowners charge a 'nominal fee,' arguing the phrase is undefined and could create legal uncertainty. The House voted to refuse to concur and asked the Senate to receive the bill back for further negotiation.
SALT LAKE CITY — On Feb. 19 the Utah House refused to concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 11 after an extended floor dispute over statutory language describing a 'nominal fee' that would preserve landowner liability protections.
Representative Peddle moved the House concur, but Representative Valentine and other members objected, arguing the term 'nominal fee' is undefined in statute and case law and could unintentionally broaden liability protections. “Nominal fee is not defined in the statute. It is not defined in the case law,” a floor speaker said, warning the language could let a landowner charge a token fee yet still receive immunity.
The chair twice put the concurrence motion, which failed on the floor, and the House then approved a motion to refuse to concur and ask the Senate to receive from its amendments so the two chambers can resolve the dispute in conference. Members said the disagreement would be communicated to the Senate and further negotiation or a conference committee would follow.
The debate focused on statutory clarity and the downstream effects on landowner liability; sponsors urged passage to preserve access and immunity where intended, while opponents urged caution and clearer statutory definitions.
Because the House formally refused to concur, the bill’s final form will be determined through interchamber negotiation rather than immediate enactment.
