Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Liability Trails topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate approves trail-immunity bill after sharp debate; measure passes 20-6
Summary
The Utah Senate passed a first-substitute version of SB 98, extending governmental immunity in connection with trails and related maintenance after sponsor amendments; the vote was 20 yes, 6 no, 3 absent. Debate centered on whether the immunity is absolute or limited for gross negligence and on trail expansion incentives.
The Utah State Senate on the floor advanced and passed first substitute Senate Bill 98, a measure that extends certain governmental immunities related to trails, after extended debate and an amendment addressing omitted districts and maintenance responsibilities.
Supporters led by Senator Butters said the substitute fixes drafting oversights and will encourage cities to build or accept pending trail projects, some of which they said might not be constructed without clearer liability protections. "You're inviting the public to come use these trails," Butters said, arguing the bill strikes a "delicate balance" between encouraging public access and clarifying responsibility for maintenance.
Opponents and cautious senators pressed whether the immunity would be an absolute shield or would preserve remedies for gross negligence, reckless or willful misconduct. Senator McCoy asked whether the language creates blanket immunity; Butters and other supporters said the intent language and the amendments were designed to address the concern but that additional legislative refinement could occur in the House. "That's one of the things President Valentine brought up," Butters said during floor debate.
The sponsor moved and the chamber adopted amendment 1 to include several special districts and to address maintenance issues raised in earlier debate. After debate and a roll-call, the Senate returned a recorded result announced in open session as 20 yes votes, 6 no votes and 3 absent. The bill was then referred to the House for its further action.
Why it matters: proponents say the bill removes a legal obstacle to trail expansion—especially projects along waterways—while opponents warned against overly broad immunity that could limit redress in serious negligence cases. Sponsors said the legislation is intended to facilitate hundreds of miles of pending trail segments and will be revisited in the House if necessary.
What happens next: the bill will go to the Utah House for its consideration; sponsors indicated they expect to continue refining negligence language and intent language in the companion process.
