Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Trail Liability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate advances trail immunity language amid questions on negligence limits
Summary
Sen. Butters’ bill to provide municipalities limited immunity for recreational trails prompted debate over whether the measure would waive liability for ordinary or gross negligence; sponsor said legal counsel added clarifying language and will report back before third reading; first substitute passed for third reading.
Senate Bill 98, introduced by Sen. Butters, would extend certain governmental immunity protections to municipalities for users of public trails, a response lawmakers said was prompted by recent litigation that could prompt cities to remove trails.
Butters framed the bill as a response to local concerns after a South Jordan lawsuit: ‘‘Someone's running along one of their trails. They fell down and broke something… The cities are so upset that unless they can have some kind of immunity for people that use the trails, then they're not only gonna quit trails, South Jordan says they're gonna remove theirs,’’ he said.
Several senators probed whether the draft created an absolute immunity or whether exceptions for negligence, gross negligence, recklessness and criminal acts remained. Sen. McCoy and others urged clarity: ‘‘I just want to make sure that we're clear that the bill won't waive something like gross negligence,’’ McCoy said.
Butters responded the bill does not waive gross negligence and that legal counsel had advised on language; he pledged to ‘‘report back on that before I go to third’’ reading and moved a first substitute. Later floor action recorded that the first substitute would be read for third time after a roll call showing 25 yes and 4 nay votes.
The sponsor said the bill contains language that ‘‘talks about no amenity is waived. If there's any negligence by the city or [in] the maintenance of the trail … you can't get out of that.’’ Butters also committed to follow up on apparent internal language tension flagged by colleagues to ensure the immunity carve-outs are explicit.
Next steps: The sponsor will report to the Senate on the specific language regarding negligence and maintenance concerns before third reading proceedings.
