Meetings
Transcript: Select text below to play or share a clip
[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Very much. Okay, we are back in Senate Judiciary. I want to briefly discuss S. Two sixty one again. This was a bill we talked about a few weeks ago, March 26. It's a bill that provides limited liability, which prohibits property and injury claims to areas described as railroad property, railroad rights of way and utility corridors to which public access is permitted. It's my recollection that when we heard testimony from Lunch Council on the twenty sixth, many came to a consensus that people were concerns about providing this type of liability exemption to all of those categories. It's also my understanding that Senate Transportation members want to look further at the level for their either their T bill or their miscellaneous bill. So, committee, any initial questions or comments on this?
[Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Can you remind me what a utility floorboard is?
[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I think with the like the big utility lines. Not like a, you know, not like a typical telephone pole but like the transmission. Yes. Yeah. The big ones. I think sometimes those are used as like there's ATV trails and ice trails that kind of go along.
[Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: And this would provide, I mean, I'm generally sort of home call. And I think, and I'm not looking at
[Philip Baruth (Member)]: it because I may have functioned, I don't know what I did with it.
[Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I feel like the level of liability protection is perhaps too high. Like, think about, you know, if someone's not properly taking care of those utility staff over that corridor, they followed her somewhere unavailable. If the Yeah. And I know we had talked about being more supportive of not active rail space, but I also have concern if those trails that are turned into, from rail to something else, if there's leftover dangerous material, then so I I'm I'm generally sort of concerned with people.
[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. And I think that if we were to transfer it, commit it to transportation, they would do their work on it. And then we would do another drive in the language that they incorporate into the bill. My initial thought was they could just copy and paste the bill. I don't know why they need S-two 61 itself, but Well,
[Philip Baruth (Member)]: in general, committees aren't supposed to work on bills they don't have. In possession, although there are ways to get around it. But yeah, I would support transferring it over to them on the understanding that this committee still needs to take a look if they're going move the language. Yeah.
[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Any other comments, questions, concerns? Thanks. Okay. So I will double check with the Chair of Transportation, but I've most likely recommitted the transportation on the board later since. That means everything. You.