SB 468, introduced by Sen. Schneider, is one of those oddly specific bills. According to the digest:
Grants civil immunity to the operator of a bowling center for injuries caused to a bowler who slips or falls in the bowling center due to the presence of a substance on the bowler’s shoe that was acquired outside the bowling center and tracked in. Requires the operator to post a conspicuous notice near the entrances and exits to the bowling center. Provides that the civil immunity does not apply if the operator fails to maintain the premises in a safe condition or the injury results from gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.
Aside from being more specific than we probably want in a law of general applicability (injuries particularly caused by a substance on a shoe tracked in from outside?), the exceptions tend to swallow the benefit of the immunity. For example, it only applies if the premises were otherwise maintained in a reasonably safe manner. The usefulness of immunity statutes comes from not having to go to trial to have a jury decide whether or not you acted reasonably. Immunity assumes negligence but denies liability. I don’t see this statute ever saving a bowling center operator from having to go to trial.
Why was an exemption proposed from liability over injuries that result from bowling gloves, except when such gloves previously were worn to change oil in automobiles? Wait! Why was there not an exemption from liability over psychological trauma caused by aesthetic shock resultant from exposure to bowling shirts? After all, the owner of the bowling center can bar anyone s/he likes to bar, so long as the person is not barred on the basis of a suspect class.
That first sentence should have begun “Why was an exemption not proposed…”
Are proposals such as these written as a result of a specific incident? As in, did someone track in something that caused a fall or injury or could have, in a bowling alley belonging to a friend, constituent, etc., of the author and the owner petitioned him to write the bill? Because, couldn’t someone track in something anywhere, like a library, church, store, etc., and cause a problem that results in the described litigation?
They are often the hare-brained scheme of a single legislator and maybe a constituent. Or
Very often, yes, Mary. Lots of legislation is triggered by a very specific incident. Sometimes that incident is representative of a problem of general applicability. But, often times, it is not.
Maybe the public gives a bit too much credit to these people, expecting them to be dealing with and seriously discussing important issues. It seems to be a big costume party, where everyone comes in different disguises and you have to guess who they really are and what they are about. I’ll bet the LSA folks are entertained in style, and the common comment is “Can you top this!” Who will be the first to write a book about this stuff?
I’m sure all the trash talking about bill proposals stopped when I left LSA. I’ll just assume I was the bad egg.
I’ll bet there’s gold in them thar hills, and a lot of good laughs along with the insight.