MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      June 11, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Assemblyman James Gibbons at 8:08 a.m., Friday, June 11, 1993, in Room 332 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.   Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda, Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Gene Porter, Vice Chairman           

      Mr. Bernie Anderson

      Mr  John C. Bonaventura

      Mr. John C. Carpenter

      Mr. Tom Collins, Jr.

      Mr. James A. Gibbons

      Mr. William D. Gregory

      Mr. William A. Petrak

      Mr. John B. Regan

      Mr. Scott Scherer

      Mr. Michael A. Schneider

      Ms. Stephanie Smith

      Mr. Louis A. Toomin

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

      Mr. Robert M. Sader, Chairman             Absent/Excused

      Mr. Ken L. Haller                               Absent/Excused

     

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

      Senator Matthew Q. Callister, District No. 8

      Senator William R. O'Donnell, District No. 5

      Senator Mark A. James, District No. 8

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Ms. Denice Miller, Research Analyst

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      Lawrence Semenza, Representative of Circus/Circus

        Enterprises

      George McNally, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association

      Judge Robey Willis, Nevada Judge's Association

      Paula Treat, Nevada Judge's Association

      Mark Brown, Representative of the MGM Grand Hotel

 

OTHERS PRESENT (CON'D):

 

      Daniel Wade, Senior Vice President and General

        Management of Theme Parks Operations of the MGM Grand

        Hotel

      Harvey Whittemore, Representative of the Nevada Court  

        Reporters' Association

 

Following roll call, Mr. Gibbons opened the hearing on  SB 413.

Vice Chairman Porter arrived while the hearing on SB 413 was in progress and Chaired the balance of the meeting.

 

SENATE BILL 413 -       Makes various changes regarding civil actions.

 

Judge Robey Willis, President, Nevada Judges' Association, spoke in favor of SB 413, a bill which would raise small claims from the 1989 level of $2,500 to $3,500.  During the last session, Judge Willis related, formal justice court actions doubled from a limit of $2,500 to $5,000.  Although the Judges' Association did not oppose this, the fees were not raised along with the increase.  When this happened, the Reno, Sparks, Carson City and Las Vegas justice courts were deluged with new filings requiring additional clerks for Carson City and Las Vegas.  Judge Willis submitted Exhibit C, an Assembly Amendment to SB 413, a table illustrating the fee schedule.

 

Vice Chairman Porter noted the prime sponsor of the bill, Senator Matthew Callister, would be late to testify on SB 413, thus, he said he would hold it until Senator Callister was available.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 744 -     Establishes safety requirements for amusement parks.

 

Lawrence Semenza, representative of Circus/Circus Enterprises, spoke in support of AB 744.  Mr. Semenza explained the gaming industry in Nevada was undergoing major changes in its entertainment provisions, and was attempting to attract more people in the United States to visit Nevada.  Mr. Semenza continued with a review of the projects proposed by the major casinos in both Las Vegas and Reno.  As a result of the vast changes proposed, he said the industry believed it was necessary to enact legislation which specified the obligations of the owners and operators of amusement parks and amusement devices, as well as setting forth safety obligations requiring passengers to abide by certain rules and regulations.

 

Mr. Semenza told the committee he had discussed the issue with George McNally, Nevada Trial Lawyers' Association, and amendments were developed which he provided for the committee as Exhibit D.   Only the Clark County jurisdiction had enacted an ordinance dealing with responsibilities pertaining to amusement and transportation rides.  SB 744 would not conflict with the Clark County ordinance.  Also, Mr. Semenza remarked, the legislation proposed would allow local as well as county governmental entities to enact regulations which would supplement the bill.

 

George McNally, Nevada Trial Lawyers' Association, spoke in favor of AB 744.  Mr. McNally opined SB 744 was a worthy attempt to be fair and reasonable in this arena, and the Trial Lawyers' Association supported the legislation as proposed.

 

Mr. Carpenter questioned the language on page 2, Section 5.  How would a person know whether they had "insufficient knowledge or physical ability to use the ride safely?" he asked.  Mr. Semenza explained there would be prominently displayed signs indicating how a passenger was to operate or participate in the particular ride.

 

Mr. McNally explained to Mr. Carpenter the situation was based upon the assumption of risk.  If a person participated in the ride, he would have to assume there was a risk.  Of course, it was also assumed a serious injury could result in a lawsuit.

 

In response to Mr. Anderson's concerns regarding the lack of a statewide inspection code, Mr. Semenza explained AB 744 would affect amusement parks statewide.  An amusement park was defined as a permanent facility, so this would not regulate the weekend fairs and midway attractions. 

 

Ms. Smith asked Mr. Semenza what the penalties were for passenger violation of provisions in the bill.  Mr. Semenza indicated there were no criminal sanctions set forth in the bill, but it would give the operator the opportunity to banish an individual and would probably remove the operator's responsibility in the prohibited act. 

 

Mr. Toomin asked Mr. Semenza how the legislation would be enforced.  Mr. Semenza replied in Clark County it was necessary to have a ride approved by an independent safety operating company which analyzed safety factors with respect to the rides.  This would be paid for by the owner operator. 

 

Mr. Regan questioned the difference in the language of the original version of the bill and the amendment to Section 3, lines 15 through 17.  Mr. Semenza explained the original language was exchanged for the amended language.  Originally the language did not limit the liability or responsibilities of an operator, however, the amendment placed an affirmative duty on the owner operator to provide safety in the construction, maintenance, operation and supervision. 

 

Representing the MGM Grand Hotel, Mark Brown spoke in favor of AB 744.  Mr. Brown introduced Daniel Wade, Senior Vice President and General Manager of the theme parks operation of the MGM Grand Hotel, who assisted in the presentation.  Mr. Brown commented on the proposed amendments and again stated his organization's support of the bill. 

 

Mr. Wade agreed with Mr. Brown's remarks and stressed the importance of the bill not only for MGM, but also for Clark County and the operators currently investing millions of dollars in the amusement industry.

 

Mr. Porter asked Mr. Wade if there were problems with the amendments.  Mr. Brown interjected there was some concern with the language on page 1, Section 4 dealing with the number of exits which would be used in case of emergency; and they were uncomfortable with the change of the 90-day provision to the word "practicable."  They wished this to be more specific and preferred it to be set at 120 or 160 days.  Mr. Brown indicated he would like to work with the committee on more specific language. 

 

In order to have amending language ready for Chairman Sader the following Monday, Mr. Porter suggested Mr. Brown work together with Mr. Semenza and Mr. McNally to develop language they could all agree upon.

 

Robert Weber, Director of the Clark County Building Department, indicated he was neutral on the bill, however, he said, it was compatible with Clark County standards for the overall protection of the public. 

 

There being no further testimony, Chairman Porter closed the hearing on AB 744.

 

SENATE BILL 413 -       Makes various changes regarding civil actions.

 

Returning to a discussion of SB 413, Senator Matthew Callister, Senatorial District 8, came forward as prime sponsor of the bill.  He told the committee he had introduced SB 413 at the request of the small loan industry as well as some of the banking components.  He continued with an explanation of the proposed amendments in Exhibit C. 

 

Paula Treat, Nevada Judges' Association, noted Judge Willis' previous testimony.  Ms. Treat believed the increase from $25 to $75 would place a strain on the courts insofar as no additional funds were provided.  She said she had been told there was a discrepancy between what the justices of the peace were allowed to charge and what the district courts were allowed to charge.  Ms. Treat also indicated in her earliest communications with Senator Callister she had specified $25 per $1,000.  She noted Senator Callister had obviously thought a threshold would not be imposed, but it had been.  Ms. Treat stressed the Judges' Association believed the bill should be processed with the Association's amendment in order to relieve the court.  If this was impossible, she asked for SB 413 to be killed.

 

Mr. Porter asked Senator Callister if he had seen the amendment proposed by the Nevada Judges' Association.  Senator Callister said he had briefly considered it.  He continued with a discussion of the proposed rates, finally admitting he was opposed to the amendment submitted by the Judges' Association.  He indicated, however, he would attempt to reach some middle ground of agreement.  Senator Callister and Ms. Treat discussed their differences.

 

With no other testimony forthcoming on SB 413, Vice Chairman Porter opened the hearing on SB 152.

 

SENATE BILL 152 -Requires owner to deliver copy of recorded notice of completion to any person who submitted request for notice.

 

Senator Callister came forward to testify as the prime sponsor of SB 152.  Senator Callister explained SB 152 was a bill which attempted to address an existing inconsistency in mechanics lien law.  Under the prior law the traditional period in which a person could attempt to foreclose on a lien began running with a certain date, typically, 90 days after the completion of work.  However, the 90 days could be foreshortened to 40 days by filing a notice of completion.  The difficulty in this, however, was the notice of completion would only go to the general contractor, not to the subcontractors, or to the providers of goods or services.  After explaining the bill more thoroughly, Senator Callister indicated he was unaware of any opposition to the bill as it was amended.

 

There being no further testimony, Vice Chairman Porter closed the hearing on SB 152.

 

SENATE BILL 430 -Revises provisions governing entry or exit of vehicle on controlled-access highway and use of signals by emergency vehicles.

 

Senator William O'Donnell, Senatorial District No. 5, testified as the prime sponsor of SB 430.  Senator O'Donnell explained SB 430 accomplished two things: 

 

1.    It changed the right-of-way language in the present law to accommodate people who had exit and entrance ramps on highways.  This meant if two lanes of traffic were merged into one, the merge would have to be somewhat like a zipper -- one after another, in an orderly fashion. 

 

2.    It specified the alternatives to using sirens.  Senator O'Donnell pointed out often sirens could not be heard when in a vehicle traveling 55 mph; and thus, were ineffective when used as a safety precaution.

 

Lt. Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff's Office, testified in support of SB 430.  Lieutenant Nadeau pointed out under current law, there were situations in which the law required a vehicle to show red lights and sound a siren.  The siren was very disturbing in a neighborhood, especially in the early hours of the morning.  Although the bill would allow an officer to show only the red lights and keep the sirens silent when appropriate, Lt. Nadeau believed most agencies would keep the siren as an option. 

 

Discussion followed.

 

There being no further testimony, Mr. Porter closed the hearing on SB 430.

 

SENATE BILL 478 -Broadens basis for exercising jurisdiction over party in civil action.

 

The prime sponsor of the bill, Senator Mark James, Senatorial District No. 8, explained SB 478 would repeal Nevada's existing long-arm statute, and adopt a simple statement that Nevada exercised jurisdiction over a party to a civil action on any basis not inconsistent with the constitution of Nevada or the United States.  Senator James told the committee the basic requirement for a state court exercising jurisdiction over someone in another state was:  1) It had to have statutory authority from the state in which it sat; and 2) the exercise of jurisdiction could not offend constitutional notions of due process. 

 

Continuing, Senator James said the existing long-arm statute, NRS 14.065, established a set of criteria the litigant had to satisfy which would indicate the person who transacted the business committed a tortious act.  If this was satisfied, a constitutional analysis could be made to ascertain whether the circumstance would be an offense to due process.  In the past, Nevada had not statutorily extended its exercise of long-arm jurisdiction to the limit of the constitution.  The bill would clarify the law by removing the criteria.  Once both prongs were merged, it would be necessary to look to the United States Constitution to determine whether, in any given circumstance, it was permissible under those well flushed-out legal rules to exercise jurisdiction over a party.

 

Mr. Gibbons asked if the bill would serve to change the civil procedure by either filing a motion to quash or a motion to dismiss, which would change the jurisdiction of an individual for appearance purposes.  Senator James replied it would not, as Nevada had a fairly arcane rule.  A challenge to personal jurisdiction could only be done through a motion to quash service of process.  He continued with a description of the legalities involved thereafter. 

 

In response to a question from Ms. Smith regarding legal requirements, Mr. Porter went into a lengthy discussion of the law involved in personal jurisdiction.

 

There being no further testimony, Vice Chairman Porter closed the hearing on SB 478.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 744 -     Establishes safety requirements for amusement parks.

 

Returning to a discussion of the amendments worked out between Mr. Semenza and Mr. McNally, Mr. Semenza explained in the amendment proposed earlier, Exhibit D, the concern surrounded the number of entrances, not for public use, which had to be posted.  In order to clarify this, Mr. Semenza pointed out each reference to "entrance," would be changed to read "passenger entrance".  Each reference to "exit" would be changed to read "non-emergency exit."  The references to "90 days" were changed to "120 days;" and on page 2, line 11, the words "designated for such" to "purposely embark or disembark from an amusement ride except at the time and area designated for such purpose."  (See Exhibit E.)

 

Mr. Anderson questioned the various situations which would be covered by language of the bill. 

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN SCHNEIDER MOVED TO AMEND WITH EXHIBIT E AND DO PASS AB 744.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 742 -     Provides for additional fee to be paid to court reporters under certain circumstances.

 

Harvey Whittemore, representing the Nevada Court Reporters' Association, spoke in support of AB 742.  The intent of the legislation, Mr. Whittemore said, was to resolve a dispute which was presently pending between many members of the Court Reporters' Association in various district courts through the payment of the various county treasuries.  He told the committee a matter was currently pending before the Supreme Court which involved a capital murder case in the Eighth Judicial District Court.  In this matter, the presiding judge had ordered the county to pay the daily rate plus twice the amount on a per page basis for an overnight transcript. 

 

In settling the case, Mr. Whittemore pointed out, the participants in the litigation and the Association had agreed to present compromise legislation designed to resolve the problem.  He submitted Exhibit F, explained the amendment proposed and asked for the present bill to be deleted and the amended language be substituted.

 

Mr. Porter ascertained it was Mr. Whittemore's wish to amend NRS 3.370 by substituting present language for the two paragraphs shown in Exhibit F.

 

There being no further testimony, Mr. Porter closed the hearing on AB 742.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND WITH EXHIBIT F AND DO PASS AB 742.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN PETRAK SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

 

Mr. Porter indicated he would hold the Senate bills until Chairman Sader returned to the committee.  There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:25 a.m.

 

 

      RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                             

      Iris Bellinger

      Committee Secretary

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Judiciary

June 11, 1993

Page: 1