Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Fact check: Have GOP lawmakers tried to shield drivers who hit protesters?

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Fact Check by Ballotpedia-Bold.png
Solidarity rally against the Dakota Access Pipeline (St. Paul, Minnesota).jpg

Dakota Access Pipeline protest rally in St. Paul, Minnesota, September 13, 2016

September 22, 2017
By Amée LaTour

Following the August 12 protest in Charlottesville, Va., where demonstrators were struck by a car and one was killed, reporter Kira Lerner wrote in ThinkProgress that "[s]tate lawmakers in at least six GOP-controlled states have pushed for laws this year that would shield drivers who hit protesters."[1]

Is Lerner correct? Have lawmakers in six GOP-controlled states pushed for such laws this year?

Bills were introduced in five (not six) GOP-controlled legislatures that called for some degree of exemption from civil liability for drivers who hit protesters in a roadway: North Dakota, Tennessee, North Carolina, Florida, and Texas.[2][3][4][5][6][7] A sixth bill was introduced in Rhode Island, which has a Democratic-controlled legislature.[8] Bills in two of those states also called for changing the standard for criminal liability.[3][6]

All six bills predated the Charlottesville incident. Three of the five measures have been rejected by at least one chamber in Republican-controlled legislatures.[3][4][6] A fourth measure—in Texas—is pending, and the fifth was passed by the North Carolina House.[7][5] The Rhode Island bill has been tabled for further study.[8]

Background

On August 12, a Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va., was held to protest the city’s plan to remove a statue of Robert E. Lee from Emancipation Park. Police dispersed the rally within minutes of its start, as protesters and counter-protesters clashed violently. The scene turned deadly later in the day, after an alleged Nazi sympathizer drove his car into a crowd of counter-protesters, killing Heather Heyer and injuring 19 others.[9]

Under current law in the six states cited by Lerner, drivers may be held civilly liable for injuries to a pedestrian if their actions are deemed negligent. They may be held criminally liable if their actions are deemed either reckless, willful, or wanton, or some combination thereof depending on the state.[10][11][12][13][14][15]

Negligence is based on the reasonable person standard: an action is negligent if it lacked due, ordinary, or reasonable care that would be expected of a reasonable person in the same situation. Reckless, willful, or wanton describe conduct that is likely to result in harm (without intent).[16]

North Dakota bill

Under current North Dakota law, a driver may be civilly liable if he or she was negligent and more than 50 percent responsible for the incident.[17]

The North Dakota bill, with five Republican sponsors, called for exempting from civil liability "a driver of a motor vehicle who, while exercising reasonable care, causes injury or death to an individual who is intentionally obstructing vehicular traffic on a public road, street, or highway."[18]

The bill also called for exempting from criminal liability "a driver of a motor vehicle who unintentionally causes injury or death to an individual who is intentionally obstructing vehicular traffic on a public road, street, or highway."[3]

The bill was rejected in the North Dakota House on February 13 by a vote of 50 to 41, with 37 Republicans joining 13 Democrats to defeat it.[3]

Tennessee and Rhode Island bills

The bills to change driver liability in Tennessee and Rhode Island contained identical language.

Both called for granting immunity from civil liability to "[a] person driving an automobile who is exercising due care and injures another person who is participating in a protest or demonstration and is blocking traffic in a public right-of-way." No immunity would be granted "if the actions leading to the injury were willful or wanton."[4][8]

Under current Rhode Island law, a driver is liable under civil law in proportion to the degree of his or her fault for the incident.[19] The Rhode Island bill was sponsored by three Republicans and two Democrats. It was tabled for further study in March by the House Judiciary Committee.[8]

Current Tennessee law holds a driver civilly liable if he or she is found to be negligent and is more than 50 percent responsible for the incident.[20][21] Immunity bills were introduced in the Tennessee House (with two Republican sponsors) and Senate (with one Republican sponsor). In March, the Tennessee House bill failed in the Civil Justice Committee, and the Senate bill was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee.[4]

North Carolina bill

Under current North Carolina law, a driver who injures a pedestrian is not civilly liable if the injured party was at fault for any portion of the incident.[22][23]

The North Carolina bill called for granting civil immunity to "[a] person driving an automobile who is exercising due care and injures another person who is participating in a protest or demonstration and is blocking traffic in a public right-of-way." The bill barred a liability exemption if the protest in which the injured party was participating had a permit to demonstrate in the public street or highway or if the driver's actions were willful or wanton.[5]

The bill, sponsored by six Republicans, passed the North Carolina House in April by a vote of 67 to 48, with one Democrat voting "aye" and three Republicans voting "no." It has been referred to the Senate Committee on Rules and Operations.[5][24]

Florida bill

Under current Florida law, a driver is civilly liable in proportion to his or her fault for the incident.[25]

A bill introduced in the Florida Senate in February called for exempting from civil and criminal liability "[a] motor vehicle operator who unintentionally causes injury or death to a person who obstructs or interferes with the regular flow of vehicular traffic in violation of subsection (1)." Subsection 1 of the bill would have established demonstrating in a public roadway without a permit as a second-degree misdemeanor.[6][26]

The measure was sponsored by one Republican Senator. It died in May, in the Senate Committee on Criminal Justice. An identical bill in the House, sponsored by one Republican Representative, died in the Civil Justice and Claims Subcommittee.[6]

Texas bill

Under current Texas law, a driver may be held liable if he or she acted negligently and was at least 50 percent responsible for the incident.[27]

A bill introduced in the Texas House in July proposed to exempt from civil liability a driver who was exercising due care and "the person injured was blocking traffic in a public right-of-way while participating in a protest." No immunity would be granted if the driver's actions were deemed grossly negligent.[7][28]

The bill is sponsored by one Republican Representative, and it was sent to the House Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence Committee on July 21.[7]

Conclusion

In a recent ThinkProgress article, reporter Kira Lerner claimed, "State lawmakers in at least six GOP-controlled states have pushed for laws this year that would shield drivers who hit protesters."[1]

In six states (one with a Democratic-controlled legislature), legislation was introduced to provide some degree of exemption from civil liability for drivers who hit protesters in a roadway. In two of those states, the bills also called for changing the standard for criminal liability.[3][4][8][5][6][7]

All six bills predated the Charlottesville incident. Three of the five measures have been rejected by at least one chamber in Republican-controlled legislatures.[3][4][6] A fourth measure—in Texas—is pending, and the fifth was passed by the North Carolina House.[7][5] The Rhode Island bill has been tabled for further study.[8]

See also

Sources and Notes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 ThinkProgress, "Republicans in 6 states are trying to protect drivers who hit protesters," August 14, 2017
  2. ↑ The term civil liability refers to the responsibility for payment of damages in a lawsuit, as distinguished from criminal liability, which involves punishment for a crime.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 LegiScan, "North Dakota House Bill 1203," accessed September 5, 2017
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 Tennessee General Assembly, "SB 0944," accessed September 5, 2017
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 General Assembly of North Carolina, "House Bill 330," accessed September 5, 2017
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 The Florida Senate, "SB 1096: Obstruction of Traffic During a Protest or Demonstration," accessed September 5, 2017
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 Texas Legislature Online, "Bill: HB 250," accessed September 5, 2017
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 LegiScan, "Rhode Island House Bill 5690," accessed September 5, 2017
  9. ↑ USA Today, "President Trump condemns white supremacists after Charlottesville violence," August 14, 2017
  10. ↑ North Dakota Legislative Branch, "Chapter 39-08, Regulations Governing Operators, section 39-08-03," accessed September 7, 2017
  11. ↑ Justia, "55-10-205 - Reckless driving," accessed September 7, 2017
  12. ↑ Justia, "Chapter 31-27, Motor Vehicle Offenses," accessed September 7, 2017
  13. ↑ General Assembly of North Carolina, "Chapter 1D, Punitive Damages," accessed September 7, 2017
  14. ↑ Sunshine Online, "Title XXIII Chapter 316, State Uniform Traffic Control," accessed September 7, 2017
  15. ↑ Texas Legislature Online, "Title 7, Motor Vehicle Offenses, Chapter 545, Section 545.401," accessed September 7, 2017
  16. ↑ Exact wording of definitions varies by state. Law Offices of Andrew D. Myers, "Negligence, Gross Negligence & Willful, Wanton Conduct," accessed September 5, 2017
  17. ↑ The amount of damages the injured party is entitled to diminishes according to his or her negligent contribution; if his or her contribution is at least 50 percent, then the injured party is not entitled to compensation by law. North Dakota Legislative Branch, Chapter 32-03.2 Fault, Damages, and Payments," accessed September 5, 2017
  18. ↑ When introduced, the bill called for exempting from liability "a driver of a motor vehicle who negligently [emphasis added] causes injury or death to an individual obstructing vehicular traffic on a public road, street, or highway."
  19. ↑ RI.gov, "Section 9-20-4," accessed September 5, 2017
  20. ↑ Justia, "29-11-102 - Right of contribution among tort-feasors, Exceptions Subrogation Indemnity," accessed September 5, 2017
  21. ↑ The Federal Evidence Review, "Tennessee Pattern Jury Instructions, Section 3.50," 2006
  22. ↑ General Assembly of North Carolina, Chapter 1B. Contribution," accessed September 5, 2017
  23. ↑ University of North Carolina School of Government, "North Carolina Pattern Instructions—Civil 810.00," June 2012
  24. ↑ The North Carolina bill uses the words public street or highway instead of public right-of-way as used in the Tennessee and Rhode Island bills, but the words are synonymous.
  25. ↑ Sunshine Online, "768.81 Comparative fault," accessed September 5, 2017
  26. ↑ The bill further stated that "In any action brought pursuant to this section, a person accused of violating subsection (1) or his or her representative has the burden of proving that he or she did not violate subsection (1) or that the injury or death was not unintentional."
  27. ↑ Texas Legislature Online, "Civil Practices and Remedies Code, Title 2, Chapter 33, Subchapter A. Proportionate Responsibility," accessed September 5, 2017
  28. ↑ In Texas, gross negligence is defined as action likely to result in harm to another, similar to reckless, willful, or wanton conduct as summarized above. Texas Legislature Online, "Title 2, Chapter 41, Damages," accessed September 7, 2017
Fact Check- 1000 x 218 px.png

Launched in October 2015 and active through October 2018, Fact Check by Ballotpedia examined claims made by elected officials, political appointees, and political candidates at the federal, state, and local levels. We evaluated claims made by politicians of all backgrounds and affiliations, subjecting them to the same objective and neutral examination process. As of 2025, Ballotpedia staff periodically review these articles to revaluate and reaffirm our conclusions. Please email us with questions, comments, or concerns about these articles. To learn more about fact-checking, click here.

Contact

We welcome comments from our readers. If you have a question, comment, or suggestion for a claim that you think we should look into, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org. You can also contact us on Facebook and Twitter.


More Fact Checks



Want these fact checks delivered to your inbox? Click here to sign up.

BP logo.png

Verbatim Logo.png

About fact-checking • Contact us • Staff • Ballotpedia



Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Fact_check/Have_GOP_lawmakers_tried_to_shield_drivers_who_hit_protesters&oldid=7765881"