Connecticut 2017 Regular Session

Connecticut House Bill HB06038

Introduced
1/19/17  
Refer
1/19/17  
Refer
2/1/17  
Refer
2/1/17  
Report Pass
3/8/17  
Refer
3/17/17  
Refer
3/17/17  
Report Pass
3/23/17  
Report Pass
3/23/17  

Caption

An Act Concerning Good Samaritan Protections For First Responders And Animal Control Officers Who Render Emergency Medical Assistance To Animals.

Impact

The passage of HB 6038 is expected to significantly influence state laws concerning liability protections for first responders and animal control officers. By amending Section 52-557b of the general statutes, the bill clarifies that these individuals will no longer be liable for civil damages, provided their actions do not constitute gross, willful, or wanton negligence. This change in legislation is crucial for encouraging the quick and compassionate response of first responders in animal emergencies, leading to potentially improved outcomes for animals in need.

Summary

House Bill 6038, known as the Good Samaritan Protections for First Responders and Animal Control Officers, aims to provide legal protections to individuals who offer emergency medical assistance to animals. This bill seeks to minimize the risks faced by firefighters, police officers, animal control personnel, and emergency medical services personnel when they intervene to help animals in distress. By establishing immunity from civil damages for any injuries sustained by animals due to ordinary negligence while rendering such assistance, the bill encourages community involvement in animal welfare without the fear of legal repercussions.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 6038 appears to be overwhelmingly positive. Supporters argue that the bill enhances the ability of first responders and animal control officials to provide timely assistance to animals without the fear of facing lawsuits. Many see it as a necessary addition to existing laws that protect first responders when they act in good faith during emergencies, thus promoting a culture of care and responsibility towards animal welfare.

Contention

While the bill passed with significant support—22 votes in favor to just 2 against—there remains contention regarding the exceptions afforded under the protections. Critics may express concerns about the potential for gross negligence definitions to allow for too broad an exemption, which could lead to abuse of the protections intended for genuine acts of kindness. However, the lawmakers appear confident that the safeguards in place will sufficiently protect against any misuse.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

No similar bills found.