Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Premises Liability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews bill to bar certain negligence claims by people who commit crimes
Summary
Representative Ben Keithley presented HB 2,667 to bar negligent-security and related negligence recoveries when wrongful criminal conduct is involved and to require apportionment of fault; the proposal also includes a provision limiting some recoveries by unauthorized aliens, prompting questions about scope and sovereign immunity.
Get email alerts on the Premises Liability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Representative Ben Keithley described House Bill 2,667 as a "criminal profiteering" reform to prevent people who engage in wrongful conduct from using negligence claims to profit from injuries tied to their own actions.
"No more letting criminals sue for the very business sue the very business or property owners whom they victimized in the first place," Keithley said, summarizing the bill’s intent to bar recovery where injuries arise from deliberate criminal or intentional tortious conduct and to limit negligent-security liability absent prior substantially similar incidents.
Committee members pressed the sponsor on several points. Representative Smith asked how broadly "wrongful conduct" would be defined; Keithley said it contemplated those on premises with intent to commit criminal acts. Members also asked whether the bill’s limits on recoveries by unauthorized aliens could raise constitutional issues; Keithley acknowledged the provision and said he would review the drafting. Representative Vate and others raised concerns about how the bill would interact with premises-liability rules and whether apportioning fault to government entities might inadvertently waive sovereign immunity; the sponsor said he would check for unintended effects.
Witnesses in favor included lawyers and trade groups that said the bill would reduce costly litigation and clarify current law. Opponents were not recorded in the transcript excerpt provided.
Committee members asked the sponsor to clarify language on scope, apportionment, and sovereign-immunity consequences before further action.
