Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Premises Liability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House Judiciary hears split testimony on S 218’s premises-liability changes
Summary
On March 30 the House Judiciary Committee heard testimony on S 218, a bill that would create an affirmative-defense standard for premises-liability suits over icy conditions; a plaintiffs-side advocate supported the bill while the Vermont League of Cities and Towns raised concerns about missing monetary caps and urged stronger protections for municipalities.
On Tuesday, March 30, the House Judiciary Committee continued its consideration of S 218, a bill proponents say would codify an affirmative-defense standard for business owners sued over injuries from icy conditions.
"This bill says you are immune unless you haven't been reasonable in your care of your premises," said Adam Nick Krasen of the Vermont Association for Justice, who testified in support of the Senate-passed version. Krasen told the committee the bill, as drafted, mirrors the common law by offering a clear affirmative defense when business owners follow established safety guidelines and leaves questions of reasonableness to a jury.
Josh Hanford, director of intergovernmental relations at the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, told the committee the League was neither formally supporting nor opposing the bill. "Our official position is we're not opposing or supporting this bill," Hanford said, and he urged changes to win municipal support. Hanford said municipalities appreciated the idea of voluntary training on salt application but wanted a monetary cap comparable to the state's existing limits — citing figures described to the committee as "$500,000 per person and 2,000,000 per occurrence." He said those limits and other adjustments would be necessary for the League to fully back the measure.
Committee members asked no substantive questions following testimony, and the chair thanked witnesses for work on the measure over the previous 12 months. Committee discussion highlighted that supporters view the bill as balancing access to justice with premises safety, while municipal representatives want clearer financial protections for towns and cities that maintain roads and sidewalks.
The committee did not take a vote during the session. Members scheduled a public hearing later the same day to receive additional testimony. The committee adjourned until that 5:00 p.m. hearing, where dozens of signed-up witnesses were expected to speak.
