BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2015-2016 Regular Session
AB 797 (Steinorth and Santiago)
Version: June 6, 2016
Hearing Date: June 14, 2016
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
RD
SUBJECT
Motor vehicles: rescue or provision of care for animal: civil
and criminal liability
DESCRIPTION
This bill would provide a person civil immunity from any
property damage or trespass to a motor vehicle, if the damage
was caused while the person was rescuing an animal in accordance
with specified law. This bill would also provide, however, that
such immunity does not affect a person's civil liability or
immunity from civil liability for rendering aid to an animal.
Additionally, this bill would: (1) expand existing provisions
applying to the responsibilities of peace officers, humane
officers, or animal control officers upon removing an animal
from a vehicle to also apply to firefighters or other emergency
responders; (2) specify that existing law does not prevent a
person from taking reasonable steps that are necessary to remove
an animal from a motor vehicle if the person holds a reasonable
belief that the animal's safety appears to be in immediate
danger, as specified; and (3) would provide that such a person
is not criminally liable for actions taken reasonably and in
good faith, as specified.
BACKGROUND
In 2006, recognizing that animals left unattended inside closed
vehicles in the heat, even for short periods of time, can suffer
severe injury and death and that even moderately warm
temperatures outside can quickly lead to deadly temperatures
AB 797 (Steinorth)
Page 2 of ?
inside a closed car, California enacted SB 1806 (Figueroa, Ch.
431, Stats. 2006) to prohibit a person from leaving or confining
an animal in any unattended motor vehicle under conditions that
endanger the health or well-being of an animal due to heat,
cold, lack of adequate ventilation, lack of food or water, or
other circumstances that could reasonably be expected to cause
suffering, disability, or death to the animal. SB 1806,
establishing Section 597.7 of the Penal Code, among other
things, established various criminal fines and penalties for
anyone who violated that law and expressly stated that the
resulting statute does not prevent a peace officer, humane
officers, or animal control officers from removing an animal
from a motor vehicle if the animal's safety appears to be in
immediate danger, as specified. In doing so, however, the bill
further required that the peace officer, humane officer, or
animal control officer take the animal to an animal shelter or
other place of safekeeping, or, if the officer deems necessary,
to a veterinary hospital for treatment. Pursuant to Section
597.7, an officer is authorized to take all steps that are
reasonably necessary for the removal of an animal from a motor
vehicle, including, but not limited to, breaking into the motor
vehicle, after a reasonable effort to locate the owner or other
person responsible. While the bill originally provided for both
civil and criminal immunity, ultimately, it was amended to
remove that language. The resulting statute, in fact, expressly
states that it does not affect in any way existing liabilities
or immunities in current law, or create any new immunities or
liabilities. (See Pen. Code Sec. 597.7.)
According to the proponents of this bill, co-sponsored by the
Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office and the Humane
Society of the United States, animals continue to be left in
unattended vehicles, despite educational efforts and the fact
that owners risk fines and imprisonment. At the same time,
bystanders hesitate to take life-saving actions to rescue an
animal whose safety is in immediate danger out of fear of both
civil and criminal liability. The Los Angeles County District
Attorney's Office cites an example with current law that their
office was made aware of: "In this tragic case a bystander
noticed a dog that had collapsed on the floor of a locked
vehicle on a warm summer day. The bystander called 911 and
waited for emergency service personnel to arrive. As the
bystander waited other people gathered around the vehicle
waiting for emergency services to arrive. As the[y] waited,
they watched as the animal continued to suffer and eventually
AB 797 (Steinorth)
Page 3 of ?
die. The bystanders told law enforcement that they considered
making entry to the vehicle but decided against taking action
because they were afraid of being arrested or sued."
Accordingly, this bill now seeks to grant immunity from both
civil and criminal liability to any person who takes reasonable
steps that are necessary to remove an animal from a motor
vehicle if the person holds a reasonable belief that the
animal's safety is in immediate danger from heat, cold, lack of
adequate ventilation, lack of food or water, or other
circumstances that could reasonably be expected to cause
suffering, disability, or death to the animal, and the person
meets certain statutory requirements. Those requirements
include, among other things, that the person: (1) contacts a
local law enforcement agency, the fire department, animal
control, or the "911" emergency service prior to forcibly
entering the vehicle; (2) uses no more force to enter the
vehicle and remove the animal from the vehicle than was
necessary under the circumstances; and (3) immediately turns the
animal over to a representative from law enforcement, animal
control, or another emergency responder who responds to the
scene.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law provides that, besides the personal rights
mentioned or recognized in the Government Code, every person
has, subject to the qualifications and restrictions provided by
law, the right of protection from bodily restraint or harm, from
personal insult, from defamation, and from injury to his
personal relations. (Civ. Code Sec. 43.)
Existing law provides that every person is bound, without
contract, to abstain from injuring the person or property of
another, or infringing upon any of his or her rights. (Civ.
Code Sec. 1708.) Existing case law provides that an act, which
in many cases is itself lawful, becomes unlawful when by [the
act] damages have accrued to the property of another. (Colton v.
Onderdonk (1886) 69 Cal. 155, 159.) Existing case law provides
that, in general, if a voluntary act, lawful in itself, may
naturally result in the injury of another, or in the violation
of his legal rights, the actor must at his peril see to it that
such injury or violation does not follow, or he must expect to
AB 797 (Steinorth)
Page 4 of ?
respond in damages therefor, regardless of the motive or degree
of care with which the act is performed. (McKenna v. Pacific E.
R. Co. (1930) 104 Cal.App. 538, 542 (internal citation
omitted).)
Existing law provides that everyone is responsible, not only for
the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury to
another caused by his or her lack of ordinary care or skill in
the management of his or her property or person, except so far
as the latter has, willfully or from lack of ordinary care,
brought the injury upon himself or herself. (Civ. Code Sec.
1714(a).)
Existing law provides that the ownership of a thing is the right
of one or more persons to possess and use it to the exclusion of
others. In the Civil Code, the thing of which there may be
ownership is called property. (Civ. Code Sec. 654.) Existing
law provides that there may be ownership of all inanimate things
which are capable of appropriation or of manual delivery; of all
domestic animals; of all obligations; of such products of labor
or skill as the composition of an author, the good will of a
business, trademarks and signs, and of rights created or granted
by statute. (Civ. Code Sec. 655.) Existing law provides that
property is either: (1) real or immovable; or (2) personal or
movable. (Civ. Code Sec. 657.) Existing law provides that
every kind of property that is not real is personal. (Civ. Code
Sec. 663.)
Existing law , Section 597.7 of the Penal Code, provides that no
person shall leave or confine an animal in any unattended motor
vehicle under conditions that endanger the health or well-being
of an animal due to heat, cold, lack of adequate ventilation, or
lack of food or water, or other circumstances that could
reasonably be expected to cause suffering, disability, or death
to the animal. A person who violates this law would be subject
to specified fines and penalties. (Pen. Code Sec. 597.7(a),
(b).)
Existing law further provides that nothing in this law prevents
a peace officer, humane officer, or an animal control officer
from removing an animal from a motor vehicle if the animal's
safety appears to be in immediate danger from heat, cold, lack
of adequate ventilation, lack of food or water, or other
circumstances that could reasonably be expected to cause
suffering, disability, or death to the animal. Existing law
AB 797 (Steinorth)
Page 5 of ?
authorizes the officer to take all steps that are reasonably
necessary for the removal of an animal from a motor vehicle,
including, but not limited to, breaking into the motor vehicle,
after a reasonable effort to locate the owner or other person
responsible. Existing law further requires the officer to take
the animal to an animal shelter or other place of safekeeping
or, if the officer deems necessary, to a veterinary hospital for
treatment, and to leave a written notice on the car, as
specified, including the address of the location where the
animal can be claimed. (Pen. Code Sec. 597.7(c).)
Existing law provides that Section 597.7 does not affect in any
way existing liabilities or immunities in current law, or create
any new immunities or liabilities. (Pen. Code Sec.
597.7(c)(5).)
This bill would apply the provisions, above, for peace officers,
humane officers, and animal control officers to firefighters and
other emergency responders, as well.
This bill would provide that Section 597.7 does not prevent a
person from taking reasonable steps that are necessary to remove
an animal from a motor vehicle if the person holds a reasonable
belief that the animal's safety is in immediate danger from
heat, cold, lack of adequate ventilation, lack of food or water,
or other circumstances that could reasonably be expected to
cause suffering, disability, or death to the animal.
This bill would further provide that a person who removes an
animal in accordance with that provision is not criminally
liable for actions taken reasonably and in good faith, if the
person meets certain other requirements. For example, the person
must:
determine the vehicle is locked or there is otherwise no
reasonable manner for the animal to be removed from the
vehicle;
contact a local law enforcement agency, the fire department,
animal control, or the "911" emergency service prior to
forcibly entering the vehicle;
use no more force to enter the vehicle and remove the animal
from the vehicle than was necessary under the circumstances;
and
immediately turn the animal over to a representative from law
enforcement, animal control, or another emergency responder
who responds to the scene.
AB 797 (Steinorth)
Page 6 of ?
This bill would add a new civil statute to provide that there
shall not be any civil liability on the part of, and no cause of
action shall accrue against, a person for property damage or
trespass to a motor vehicle, if the damage was caused while the
person was rescuing an animal in accordance with the standards
in the Penal Code provisions, above. This bill would further
provide that this immunity from civil liability for property
damage to a motor vehicle established does not affect a person's
civil liability or immunity from civil liability for rendering
aid to an animal.
This bill would make other conforming and technical changes.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
According to the author:
California's existing "Good Samaritan" statute does not
protect a person from liability from acting to rescue an
animal facing imminent danger from being trapped in a hot car.
As a result, well-intentioned people who notice an animal
illegally left in an unattended vehicle are unable to act to
save the pet from potential heat exhaustion or death in the
event that law enforcement or emergency responders are unable
to arrive in time to act.
AB 797 establishes immunity from civil liability for any
person who acts to rescue an animal facing imminent danger
while left unattended in a vehicle. In order to receive such
legal immunity, the person must follow specific steps
identified in this legislation prior to entering the vehicle.
These steps include:
(1) Determining the vehicle is locked or there is otherwise
no reasonable manner for the animal to be removed from the
vehicle;
(2) Have a good faith belief that forcible entry into the
vehicle is necessary because the animal is in imminent
danger of suffering harm if not immediately removed from
the vehicle, and based upon the circumstances known to the
person at the time, the belief is reasonable;
(3) Contact local law enforcement prior to forcibly entering
the vehicle.
To enter the vehicle, the person is required to use no more
AB 797 (Steinorth)
Page 7 of ?
force than necessary to enter the vehicle and remove the
animal from the vehicle. Following entry into the vehicle to
rescue the animal, the person is required to remain with the
animal at a safe location, out of the elements but reasonably
close to the vehicle, until an emergency responder arrives.
The person rescuing the animal will only receive criminal and
civil immunity if each and every one of the above steps are
followed. [Emphasis in original.]
The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, co-sponsor of
this bill, writes that:
Every year, hundreds of animals suffer, and many die, in Los
Angeles County from being left in hot vehicles. Even when
temperatures are in the low 70s and a car's windows are left
slightly open, a vehicle can heat up more than 40 degrees
within an hour. If an animal's safety appears to be in
immediate danger, California Penal Code [S]ection 597.7 allows
peace officers, human officers, and animal control officers to
take any reasonable steps to remove the animal from a vehicle,
including, but not limited to, breaking into the vehicle. The
section does not, however, allow civilians to physically
remove an animal from a vehicle, regardless of how urgent or
life-threatening the situation is. Currently, civilians in
California who observe an animal in immediate danger are not
permitted to do anything, other than attempt to find the
animal's owner (which can prove to be difficult, if not
impossible, and time-consuming) and/or notify the authorities.
By the time a citizen spots an animal trapped in a hot
vehicle, the situation is often dire, and requires immediate
action. Because a call of this nature is not a priority for
law enforcement, peace officers may not respond in time. Due
to the very limited resources of animal control agencies
across the state, as much as animal control officers would
like to respond quickly to a call of an animal in a hot
vehicle, it is not always feasible." Accordingly, they
write, "AB 797 will provide a legal framework for a Good
Samaritan to follow in order to remove an animal from a hot
car, without fear of legal repercussions."
2. Civil liability and Good Samaritan laws, generally
Civil liability has the primary effect of ensuring that some
measure of recourse exists for those persons injured by the
AB 797 (Steinorth)
Page 8 of ?
negligent or willful acts of others, and the risk of that
liability has the primary effect of ensuring parties act
reasonably to avoid harm to those to whom they owe a duty.
Fundamentally, California law provides as a general rule that
everyone is responsible, for both the result of his or her
willful acts, and for an injury occasioned to another by his or
her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or
her property or person. (Civ. Code Sec. 1714(a); though the
statute recognizes an exception to this rule where the person
injured has, willfully or from lack of ordinary care, brought
the injury upon him or herself.) California law also provides
that the duty of every person to abstain from injuring the
person or property of another, or infringing upon any of his or
her rights. (Civ. Code Sec. 1708.) Indeed, under case law, it
is clear that an otherwise lawful act can become unlawful when
it causes damage to the property of another. (See Colton v.
Onderdonk (1886) 69 Cal. 155, 159.) In general, if a voluntary
act, lawful in itself, may naturally result in the injury of
another, or in the violation of his legal rights, the actor must
see to it that such injury or violation does not follow, or he
must expect to be liable for damages-regardless of his motive or
the degree of care with which he performed the act. (See
McKenna v. Pacific E. R. Co. (1930) 104 Cal.App. 538, 542
(internal citation omitted).)
Although immunity provisions are rarely preferable because they,
by their nature, prevent an injured party from seeking a
particular type of recovery, the Legislature has, in limited
scenarios, approved limited immunity from liability (as opposed
to blanket immunities) to promote other policy goals that could
benefit the public. Along these lines, this Legislature has, on
multiple occasions, enacted legislation that encourages the use
of life saving medications or medical interventions (such as
automatic external defibrillators (AEDs), epinephrine
auto-injectors (epi-pens), and opioid antagonists) in order to
avoid preventable deaths by limiting the liability of "Good
Samaritans," as long as certain minimal requirements are met.
In most of those scenarios, the qualified immunity does not
apply in the case of personal injury or wrongful death which
results from the gross negligence or willful or wanton
misconduct by the person who renders the care. (See e.g. Civ.
Code Sec. 1714.21.)
This bill seeks to now provide Good Samaritans who act
reasonably to save the life of an animal whose life is in
AB 797 (Steinorth)
Page 9 of ?
immediate danger, as specified, with immunity from civil and
criminal liability.
3. Bill appears to craft a narrow immunity for the reasonable
actions of a Good Samaritan to rescue an animal whose safety
is in immediate danger
Currently, California law Section 597.7 of the Penal Code makes
it unlawful for a person to leave their animals unattended in a
vehicle under conditions that endanger the health or well-being
of an animal due to heat, cold, lack of adequate ventilation, or
lack of food or water, or other circumstances that could
reasonably be expected to cause suffering, disability, or death
to the animal. While this law authorizes peace officers, animal
control officers, and humane officers to take reasonable steps
to save the life of an animal trapped in an unattended vehicle,
even if they must break into the car to do so, it is silent on
the ability of citizen bystanders to act to save the life of the
animal in the same situation. As a practical matter, the only
legally-sound options available to a bystander are to attempt to
track down the owner or to call for help. Some might argue that
a reasonable person in this situation would even go as far as to
break into the car to save the animal's life in the
circumstances described by proponents, but, ultimately, there is
no assurance that a court would agree if the person were to in
fact be sued by the animal's owner for the damage caused to
their car.
Accordingly, this bill would create a new civil immunity
provision to encourage Good Samaritans to act when it becomes
clear that the animal's life is in immediate danger. At the
same time, however, the bill appears to base that immunity
narrowly on the reasonableness of the person's actions, the
person's reasonable and good faith belief that the animal's
safety was in immediate danger, and the person's compliance with
certain enumerated requirements.
Specifically, this bill would provide that a person is not
civilly liable for property damage or trespass to a motor
vehicle, if the damage was caused while the person was rescuing
an animal in accordance with certain provisions in the Penal
Code. By making the immunity contingent upon acting in
accordance with the proposed Penal Code provisions, the bill
ensures that the person has to take the same actions that are
necessary for the person to avoid criminal liability in order to
AB 797 (Steinorth)
Page 10 of ?
enjoy civil immunity for the damages they cause to the motor
vehicle in rescuing an animal whose safety is in immediate
danger. Those Penal Code provisions at the outset require that
the person held a reasonable belief that the animal's safety is
in immediate danger from heat, cold, lack of adequate
ventilation, lack of food or water, or other circumstances that
could reasonably be expected to cause suffering, disability, or
death to the animal, and that the person took reasonable steps
that are necessary to remove the animal from the motor vehicle.
Even then, the person would only be immune for those actions
taken reasonably and in good faith, if he or she:
determines the vehicle is locked or there is otherwise no
reasonable manner for the animal to be removed from the
vehicle;
has a good faith belief that forcible entry into the vehicle
is necessary because the animal is in imminent danger of
suffering harm if it is not immediately removed from the
vehicle, and, based upon the circumstances known to the person
at the time, the belief is a reasonable one;
has contacted a local law enforcement agency, the fire
department, animal control, or the "911" emergency service
prior to forcibly entering the vehicle;
remains with the animal in a safe location, out of the
elements but reasonably close to the vehicle, until a peace
officer, humane officer, animal control officer, or another
emergency responder arrives;
used no more force to enter the vehicle and remove the animal
from the vehicle than was necessary under the circumstances;
and
immediately turns the animal over to a representative from law
enforcement, animal control, or another emergency responder
who responds to the scene.
At the same time, this bill would also ensure that by creating
civil immunity for property damage to the motor vehicle when
saving an animal in accordance with the requirements above, it
does not in any way affect either the liability or immunity that
a person might hold under existing law in rendering aid to the
animal. In support, co-sponsor Humane Society of the United
States writes:
Plenty of Californians have come across animals in need of
rescue from parked cars on hot days, but aren't sure what to
do and fear being sued or arrested if they take unauthorized
steps to free an animal. [ . . . ] First responders on the
AB 797 (Steinorth)
Page 11 of ?
scene to rescue animals left in hot cars have given firsthand
accounts of the suffering that a dog left in a hot car
endures. They have described the claw marks left on the door
with nail particles still stuck in them made by trapped
animals, the contorted body shapes of those desperately trying
to get out, and what it looks like when they do not. They have
described the look of horror on a person's face when they find
out this happened to their dog, because of their mistake, and
how the guilt, the sadness and the remorse can eat away at
them over time, and how the emotions, public shaming and legal
prosecution can destroy their lives. And they have stressed
how utterly unnecessary it all is.
A number of states, such as Tennessee, Wisconsin, Michigan,
and Florida, recently enacted similar legislation with
bipartisan support. And a similar bill is on the Ohio
governor's desk now. Good Samaritan bills addressing children
left in hot cars have a long history and it makes sense to
apply the same concept to the common problem of pets being
left in hot cars. AB 797 includes thoughtful language that
increases protection for animals but also prevents
vigilantism. Intervention is carefully defined and kept as a
last resort only to be used when all other options have been
exhausted and the animal is in visible distress. This bill
also spells out steps for after an animal has been removed to
ensure that emergency care is provided and pets are returned
to their owners appropriately.
4. Definition of "animal"
The authors may wish to amend this bill to apply to only
domesticated or household animals, so as to avoid any unintended
consequences or confusion as to damage caused to a motor vehicle
hauling, for example, livestock, horses, or other agricultural
animals.
5. Support if amended letter
The State Humane Association of California's Board of Directors
writes a support if amended letter requesting that the bill be
amended to ensure that all people - including bystanders,
officers, and employees - and the agencies, organizations and
companies that employ them are immune from civil and criminal
liability when acting in good faith to rescue an animal or child
from a car. Staff notes that under the Government Tort Claims
AB 797 (Steinorth)
Page 12 of ?
Act (Gov. Code Sec. 810 et seq.), public entities and employees
are generally not liable for an injury, except as otherwise
provided by statute, and that ultimately, the problems described
with respect to inaction on the part of Good Samaritans do not
appear to exist in the context of professionals who respond to
these scenes in their professional capacities.
6. Bill should be sent back to Senate Rules for consideration
of request from Senate Committee on Public Safety
In addition to establishing a specified civil immunity for
persons who rescue an animal pursuant to a reasonable belief
that the animal's safety is in immediate danger, this bill would
provide for a criminal immunity as well under the Penal Code.
That immunity, like the civil immunity, is contingent upon the
person meeting certain requirements. Additionally, as with the
civil immunity provision, as a threshold matter, the person is
only permitted to take "reasonable steps necessary" to rescue
the animal if he or she "holds a reasonable belief" that
animal's safety is in immediate danger.
If approved by this Committee, the Senate Rules Committee has
directed that AB 797 be sent back to Rules Committee for
consideration of the Senate Committee on Public Safety's
re-referral request.
Support : ASPCA; Best Friends Animal Society; Council Member
David J. Toro - City of Colton; Civil Justice Association of
California; Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association; Marin
Humane Society; Office of the San Diego County District
Attorney's Office; San Bernardino County Sheriff John McMahon;
San Diego Humane Society; San Francisco SPCA; Social Compassion
in Legislation; State Humane Association of California (support
if amended); one individual
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : Humane Society of the United States; Los Angeles
District Attorney
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
AB 797 (Steinorth)
Page 13 of ?
Prior Legislation : SB 1806 (Figueroa, Ch. 431, Stats. 2006) See
Background. Earlier versions of the bill also provided for
civil and criminal immunity, but that language was ultimately
removed coming out of the Senate Public Safety Committee, and
was therefore not heard in this Committee.
Prior Vote :
Assembly Floor (Ayes 77, Noes 0)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 17, Noes 0)
Assembly Accountability and Administrative Review Committee
(Ayes 9, Noes 0)
**************