Provides for exemplary damages when injuries are caused by a driver operating a motor vehicle while using a wireless telecommunications device
The passage of HB 792 would directly impact civil liability laws in Louisiana regarding distracted driving. By allowing exemplary damages to be awarded, the bill is intended to create a disincentive for drivers to use their devices while operating a vehicle. This would serve not only to compensate victims more adequately for their injuries but also to deter potential reckless conduct among drivers. It reinforces the existing prohibitions against using telecommunications devices while driving, thus aiming to enhance the overall safety of roadways in Louisiana.
House Bill 792, introduced by Representative Gregory Miller, seeks to address the issue of injuries caused by drivers who are operating a motor vehicle while using wireless telecommunications devices. The bill proposes to enact Article 2315.10 of the Civil Code, which allows for the award of exemplary damages when it is proven that an individual's injuries were a result of a driver’s wanton or reckless disregard for safety while using such devices. This legislative move aims to increase accountability among drivers who engage in distracted driving behaviors, ultimately enhancing public safety on the roads.
The sentiment surrounding HB 792 appears to be generally supportive, particularly among proponents who advocate for increased measures against distracted driving. Supporters argue that the bill will serve as an essential tool for protecting public safety and holding drivers accountable for their actions. Conversely, there may be concerns from some quarters about the potential for abuse of the exemplary damages provision, with critics fearing it could lead to excessive litigation and a burden on the legal system.
Notable points of contention surrounding HB 792 include concerns about the practical implications of awarding exemplary damages. Critics may argue that the bill could unintentionally create a culture of litigation that could overwhelm the courts and increase insurance costs. Supporters counter that the benefits of deterring distracted driving far outweigh potential downsides, emphasizing the importance of prioritizing safety over legal and financial considerations.