Provides relative to certain civil liability damages and prescription. (8/1/19)
The proposed changes would result in an increased prescriptive period for certain delictual actions from one year to two years, thus giving individuals more time to seek remedies in cases of damage or injury. Additionally, the bill introduces provisions that allow for evidence of safety belt violations to be considered in cases of comparative negligence, modifying the current protections that shield individuals from liability due to safety belt noncompliance. These modifications might lead to changes in how civil liability cases are litigated in Louisiana, particularly those related to vehicle use.
Senate Bill 154, introduced by Senator Ward, seeks to amend provisions concerning civil liability and damages associated with vehicle operations on highways. This bill touches upon issues of liability for damages to highway structures and redefines the relationship between vehicle owners and operators, shifting the terminology from 'jointly and severally liable' to 'solidary liability.' The bill aims to clarify the legal framework under which individuals driving vehicles may be held accountable for damages incurred due to their actions or operations, particularly when those vehicles exceed weight limits or are operated illegally.
The sentiment around SB 154 appears to be cautiously positive among proponent circles emphasizing the need for clarity in civil liability laws. Supporters argue that the changes will modernize the legal framework to better reflect practical considerations in vehicle operation and liability. However, there may also be apprehension regarding how the alterations could affect individual rights in negligence cases, particularly with the inclusion of safety belt usage in comparative negligence assessments. The balance struck between encouraging safe driving practices and not unduly penalizing victims remains a point of contention.
Notable points of contention include the implications of allowing safety belt violations to factor into liability decisions, as critics could argue this could disincentivize individuals from seeking rightful claims if they fear potential blame for comparative negligence. Concerns also arise about whether the redefined liability terms sufficiently protect victims or unduly favor vehicle operators and owners. The interplay between individual rights and legal responsibilities under these proposed law modifications will continue to spark debate amongst lawmakers and legal experts.