Committee advances bill limiting liability for Grand Canyon river outfitters, prompting constitutional questions
Loading...
Summary
House Bill 2279 would shield commercial Grand Canyon river outfitters from liability for injuries or deaths arising from inherent trip risks while retaining liability for gross negligence or intentional harm; outfitters urged alignment with other Western states and the committee recommended do‑pass amid debate over Arizona’s anti‑abrogation constitutional provision.
House Bill 2279, a proposal to exempt commercial Grand Canyon river outfitters from liability for injuries or deaths resulting from inherent risks connected to river trips inside Grand Canyon National Park, was recommended do‑pass by the House Commerce Committee after testimony from outfitters and tourism associations and pushback from trial‑lawyer and consumer‑protection witnesses.
Proponents said the Grand Canyon rafting industry operates under intensive federal oversight, long-term contracts with the National Park Service and high safety standards, and that existing state law in several Western states provides similar liability clarifications. John Dillon of the Grand Canyon River Outfitters Association and other industry witnesses said litigation risk and insurance costs are threatening the viability and affordability of multi‑day river trips.
Opponents, including representatives of trial-lawyer interests, argued the bill could collide with Arizona’s constitutional anti‑abrogation protections and that defining "inherent risk" in statute rather than leaving it to juries raises constitutional and procedural questions. Witnesses emphasized the need to preserve access to courts and to ensure negligence claims remain adjudicated by juries.
Committee members debated those constitutional and practical concerns; some members highlighted the economic importance of the outfitters to northern Arizona and argued the bill aligns state law with neighboring states. Others voiced caution about creating statutory definitions that could limit judicial fact-finding. The committee returned HB 2279 with a do‑pass recommendation (7 ayes, 4 nays). Committee records indicate further stakeholder engagement is likely if the bill proceeds to the floor.
The hearing included extended testimony about the unique nature of Grand Canyon river trips, the industry’s long history and safety protocols, and both the economic and constitutional stakes of the proposed liability change.
