Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Law Bystander Liability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah House rejects bill that would criminalize willful failure to call 911
Summary
The Utah House defeated HB 104 on Feb. 18, 2020 after hours of debate over whether to create a narrowly tailored misdemeanor for people who 'willfully' fail to call 911 when they have personal knowledge someone is suffering serious bodily injury. Supporters said it closes a moral and legal gap; opponents warned it criminalizes inaction.
Get email alerts on the Criminal Law Bystander Liability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Utah House on Feb. 18 defeated House Bill 104, a proposal to make it a class B misdemeanor for a person who "willfully" fails to call 911 when they have personal knowledge that another person is suffering serious bodily injury.
Sponsor Representative Brian King told colleagues the bill is narrow and intended to give prosecutors a tool to address "circumstances where an individual or a group intentionally and knowingly fails to call 911 when they know of serious injury." He said the measure includes guardrails and a willfulness standard that excludes panicked or reasonable responses: "It does not require that the individual place themselves in any danger... If they willfully fail to do so, then they may be subject to being charged with a class B misdemeanor." (Representative Brian King).
Supporters described shocking modern examples — bystanders who film victims instead of seeking help — and urged a legal response. Representative Hutchings said the stories "haunted" him and argued the bill addresses a gap in criminal accountability when people display "callous indifference." Representative Quinn, a repeat supporter, invoked recent widely shared videos to press the moral case for minimum legal duties.
Opponents warned the bill risks criminalizing ordinary, noncriminal inaction and represents a significant departure from Utah's tradition of limiting criminal liability to affirmative wrongdoing. Representative Nielsen argued the proposal moves from moral expectation to legal compulsion, saying the measure could punish "innocent people for inaction" and compared the policy question to longstanding legal norms that typically do not impose bystander liability.
Lawmakers debated the statute's language and consequences for civil liability. King said the bill expressly does not create an independent civil basis for damages and that Good Samaritan protections in the code were preserved. The sponsor and supporters emphasized the bill targets only the most egregious cases of conscious indifference, not panicked or confused bystanders.
After extended debate and a motion to close debate, the House voted to reject HB 104. The vote was 29 in favor and 46 opposed. The bill failed and will be referred for filing.
The final action on HB 104 was defeat on the House floor; there was no amendment adopted that changed the bill's fundamental scope. The legislature’s official record shows the bill was referred for filing following the vote.
