Texas House Bill HB2889

Texas 2009 - 81st Regular

Caption

Relating to liability of ambulance service providers for certain occurrences.

Impact

The implications of HB2889 are significant for ambulance service providers, as it establishes a cap on damages that can be claimed against them in certain situations. By limiting liability to a defined monetary amount, the bill attempts to offer a degree of financial certainty to ambulance services, which often face unpredictable and costly legal challenges. Such a measure could influence the operational decisions of these providers, as it may reduce the fear of crippling legal judgments that could arise from accidents.

Summary

House Bill 2889 proposes amendments to Chapter 97 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, specifically addressing the liability of ambulance service providers during motor vehicle accidents occurring while providing ambulance services. The bill intends to limit the liability of such providers to a maximum of $250,000 for economic damages arising from each occurrence. This legislation aims to provide a legal framework that balances the accountability of ambulance service providers while ensuring protection from excessive damages claims in specific accident circumstances.

Contention

While the bill aims to protect ambulance providers, it also raises points of contention concerning the potential undermining of accountability for negligent actions. Critics may argue that by capping liability, the bill can inadvertently diminish the incentive for ambulance services to maintain high standards of care and operational safety. The exception for intentional or grossly negligent acts is a safeguard; however, the definition of 'gross negligence' may invite further legal debate, leaving room for differing interpretations.

Notable_points

Another notable aspect of HB2889 is the provision stating that the changes apply only to actions accruing post the effective date of the act, thus ensuring that prior cases are judged by the existing legal standards. The bill also calls for a three-fifths majority vote in both legislative houses for it to take effect, which indicates the importance of bipartisan support in potentially sensitive liability discussions.