Judiciary committee recommends finding S218 amendment unfavorable after liability debate

The House Judiciary Committee on April 14 considered an amendment to S218, the chloride (salt) bill, that would add municipal liability caps tied to participation in the state salt-reduction program.

Sponsor Michael Bootin, a Barry City councilor, told the committee the amendment is a "straightforward fix" to provide municipalities workable liability protection. "Without meaningful liability protection, municipalities are being put in a position where a single lawsuit could have major financial impact on their general fund and ultimately property taxes," Bootin said, and he described the proposed caps as $500,000 per person and $2 million per incident to mirror existing state protections.

The Vermont League of Cities and Towns (VLCT) supported the amendment. Samantha Sheehan, VLCT's Municipal Policy and Advocacy Specialist, said the bill's current affirmative defense is "totally inadequate for municipal government" and that a modest cash-cap limited to program participants would allow towns to join the chloride-reduction effort without undue exposure. "We represent all 251 municipalities in the state of Vermont," Sheehan said, and she urged the committee to consider the amendment so municipalities can safely take part in the program.

Opponents warned the caps could leave catastrophically injured people undercompensated. Attorney Chris Mailly, who said he represented the plaintiff in a Brandon case that resulted in a multi-million‑dollar settlement, recounted the consequences of a lamp post collapse that rendered a client a paraplegic. "This $500,000 cap removes that idea altogether," Mailly said, arguing that such limits would shift the burden to the public safety net and could leave victims without sufficient recovery.

Members questioned both the frequency of large awards and how insurance mechanics would respond. Committee members asked whether most Vermont municipalities are insured through VLCT, how the affirmative defense interacts with claims of gross negligence, and whether capping liability would translate to lower premiums. Sheehan explained that municipal coverage varies—some towns use VLCT's pool (PACIF), others carry private insurance or self-insure—and that premium impacts are complex and best answered by insurers.

The committee also discussed precedent and scope. VLCT witnesses noted the state has had cash liability caps for state government since 1961 and that some New England states extend similar caps to municipalities; witnesses said the Boot amendment would apply only to municipal applicators who participate in the chloride program, not to all municipal tort claims.

After roughly 90 minutes of testimony and questioning, a member moved to find amendment draft 1.1 to S218 unfavorable. The motion was seconded and the committee conducted a straw poll; the chair reported a final tally of 7 in favor of finding it unfavorable, 2 opposed and 2 abstaining. The committee's recommendation, as recorded, is to find the amendment unfavorable.

What happens next: the committee’s unfavorable recommendation will be transmitted with the bill back to the referring committee (environment), where the amendment originated. Committee members and witnesses said the liability issue may merit more extensive review in Commerce or Government Operations given insurance and premium questions.

Sources: committee hearing testimony from Michael Bootin (sponsor), Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns) and attorney Chris Mailly, April 14, House Judiciary Committee.