Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House Concurred on Revisions to Emergency Vehicle Duty-of-Care After Heated Debate
Summary
The Utah House voted to concur with Senate amendments to HB 20, a bill revising emergency-vehicle operator duty-of-care rules, after extended floor debate about whether the measure grants immunity to officers acting outside agency policy; the bill passed the House and will return to the Senate.
Representative Dee, the House sponsor, moved that the House concur with Senate amendments to second substitute House Bill 20, which revises the duty-of-care standard for operators of authorized emergency vehicles and clarifies liability rules for marked and unmarked vehicles. Dee said the amendment requires operators to be in marked, clearly identified vehicles and reaffirms training and policy compliance as the baseline for liability.
Supporters said the bill protects officers who make split-second decisions in pursuits. Representative Greenwood said officers undergo ongoing training and supervisors monitor pursuits; "Once those lights and siren are activated, that officer then makes a very critical decision," Greenwood said.
Opponents and questioners repeatedly raised whether the bill would provide immunity to officers who act outside an agency's written pursuit policy. Representative Anderegg pressed whether an officer who acts outside policy would retain personal liability; he stated the concern directly: "The bill allows for immunity when an officer is acting outside of the policy set forth by its entity," and said he could not support concurrence on that basis. Dee responded that the bill does not provide absolute immunity for civil-rights violations and does not protect conduct that is "shocking to the conscience," adding that both the officer and the employing entity may still face liability in many scenarios. "It has nothing to do with civil rights violations," Dee said in response to questions.
After a motion to end debate carried, the House voted by division and the motion to concur with the Senate amendments was reported as having passed; the subsequent vote on second substitute House Bill 20 was recorded as 41 yes, 28 no, and the measure will be returned to the Senate for its signature and any further action.
The debate centered on a tradeoff the sponsor described as protecting well-trained emergency operators from unwarranted lawsuits while preserving remedies for extreme misconduct. Several members urged more precise statutory language or further amendment in conference to ensure the balance between officer protection and accountability.
The House also recorded other votes and business around this item before and after the HB 20 debate; the session moved afterward to additional third-reading calendar items and routine announcements.
