MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Sixty-seventh Session
June 25, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Robert M. Sader at 8:12 a.m., Friday, June 25, 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. Robert M. Sader, Chairman
Mr. Gene T. Porter, Vice Chairman
Mr. Bernie Anderson
Mr John C. Bonaventura
Mr. Tom Collins, Jr.
Mr. James A. Gibbons
Mr. William D. Gregory
Mr. Ken L. Haller
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. John C. Carpenter Absent/Excused
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ms. Denice Miller, Research Analyst
OTHERS PRESENT:
Tom Bentz, Nevada Alliance for Responsible Animal Use
Clayton Rice, Legal Counsel, Responsible Dog Owner
Group
Darl Thiessens, Representative of Reno Kennel Club
Sierra Nevada Collie Club and Pet Shop Owners
Vic Schulze, Esmeralda County District Attorney
George McNally, Nevada Trial Lawyers' Association
Curtis Risley, Risk Manager for Sierra Pacific Power
Company
Jim Wadhams, Representative of the Nevada Hospital
Association and the Nevada Rural Hospital Project
Following roll call, Chairman Sader opened the hearing on AB 780.
ASSEMBLY BILL 780 -
Requires all swimming pools other than those at residences to comply with health and safety standards for public pools.
Assemblyman Louis A. Toomin, Assembly District No. 15, testified as prime sponsor of AB 780. Mr. Toomin explained the purpose of the bill was to change an inequity in the law which prohibited health department jurisdiction over residential pools. Some of the facilities given a residential permit for a pool were commercial entities and many of these violated the health and safety standards set for public pools. Mr. Toomin submitted Exhibit C, and explained the information identified the difference between a commercial and a residential swimming pool. The proposed bill would statutorily codify authority for state and local health authorities over, not only child care facilities but also certain residential pools. He acknowledged the bill had a large fiscal note; however, any previous problems with the bill had been addressed and the pertinent information was contained in Exhibit C.
Mr. Gibbons questioned whether the language in Section 1, subsection 2(d) would give the State Board of Health the latitude to pick and choose when to enforce the regulation and defeat the purpose of the bill. Mr. Toomin did not believe it would, however, if Mr. Gibbons wished to amend the language, he would not object.
Mr. Anderson asked if a facility had an existing pool when the structure was purchased and turned into a foster care home, whether the bill would require the pool to be closed or brought up to commercial standards. Mr. Toomin answered it would, and indicated Section 6 applied to pools which were not permitted.
There being no further testimony, Mr. Sader closed the hearing on AB 780.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AB 780 WITH MR. TOOMIN'S PROPOSED AMENDMENT (EXHIBIT C).
ASSEMBLYMAN PETRAK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
SENATE BILL 495 -
Limits liability of certified emergency medical dispatchers.
Jim Wadhams, representative of the Nevada Hospital Association and the Nevada Rural Hospital Project, testified in support of AB 495. Mr. Wadhams was accompanied by Bill Welch, representative of Nevada Rural Hospital Project, who also assisted in the presentation.
Mr. Welch explained his organization had requested the bill because in rural Nevada the majority, if not all, medical dispatchers of the emergency medical services were volunteers. Concern over the risk of liability had been expressed by these volunteer physicians in the last several years. He told the committee these medical volunteers had the important function of helping establish protocols and providing training of emergency medical technicians who were used as ambulance attendants and some first responders in rural communities.
In examining liability insurance from hospitals, as well as from their individual malpractice carriers, Mr. Welch said they found there was no protection provided for the medical dispatchers. He noted The Good Samaritan Act provided relief for volunteer ambulance attendants, but it did not appear there was any protection for the medical dispatcher of the ambulance attendants. Mr. Welch suggested if something was not done to resolve the issue, medical dispatchers would either require compensation through the provision of liability insurance or they would discontinue functioning in this capacity. If this occurred, licensed ambulance services in rural communities would also be discontinued since state law mandated all ambulance services to have a medical dispatcher.
Mr. Wadhams added NRS 41.500 and NRS 41.505 already provided immunity for the emergency medical technician and the medical dispatcher, but the bill added protection for the dispatcher function. This was particularly critical in rural communities where there were no separate ambulance companies, and such medical service was conducted out of the hospital and with volunteers.
Mr. Sader noted Mr. Wadhams and Mr. Welsh had provided a rationale for a volunteer medical dispatcher in a rural community. The bill applied to all emergency medical dispatchers to public and private agencies and health facilities involved in the dispatching function. Also, it applied across the state -- not just to rural areas. Chairman Sader asked if they could provide the rationale for including any of those areas or entities in the sweep of this bill.
Mr. Wadhams replied if the committee preferred to limit the scope of the bill to counties with a population under 100,000 his agency would have no problem with it.
George McNally, Nevada Trial Lawyers' Association, spoke in favor of SB 495. Based upon the testimony from Mr. Wadhams and the amendment to limit it to volunteers in rural communities with a population under 100,000, Mr. McNally said the Trial Lawyers supported the bill.
Anne Rieger, Administrator, Elko General Hospital, submitted written testimony in support of SB 495 (Exhibit D).
There being no further testimony, Chairman Sader closed the hearing on SB 495.
Mr. Sader restated the amendment was to limited the scope of the bill to civil immunity for volunteer medical dispatchers in rural counties with a population under 100,000.
ASSEMBLYMAN TOOMIN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS SB 495.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
ASSEMBLY BILL 89 -
Revises criminal provisions relating to owning or keeping dangerous animal.
Clayton Rice, legal counsel for the Responsible Dog Ownership Group, testified in favor of AB 89, and indicated his organization was the author of bill in its current amended form. Mr. Rice explained the suggested changes were agreed upon by Vic Schulze, the District Attorney for Esmeralda County, which was the requesting agency for the bill. Mr. Rice believed current law was not specific in its definition of "vicious dog," and amendment 701 to AB 89 defined the term "vicious dog" (Exhibit E).
Mr. Rice explained the proposed changes:
1. Delete the word "potentially" in each case. Mr. Rice did not believe a dog should be penalized based upon "potential."
2. Under Section 1(a)(2) the 36 months time period would be reduced to 18 months.
3. Under Section 1, subsection 3, insert the words "or vicious" after the word "dangerous," in order to protect a either a dangerous or vicious dog who was defending its property or its owner.
4. Under Section 1, subsection 4, insert language to allow the transfer of ownership of a dangerous or a vicious dog as long as there was full disclosure. This would permit a person to transfer the dog to a police or military academy where the dog could possibly be trained for a productive existence.
5. The title of the bill referred to registration of dangerous dogs. This bill did not have a registration provision in it, therefore, the language should be deleted.
Vic Schulze, District Attorney for Esmeralda County, remarked he had no problems with the bill in its current amended form; and he urged its passage.
Chairman Sader questioned the consistency of the language defining "vicious" in the amendment on page 2, Section 1(c)(2) which said, "After its owner or keeper has been notified by a law enforcement agency that it is dangerous, it continues the behavior described in paragraph (a)." This was the menacing conduct but the language in Section 1, subsection 4, said "A person who . . . owns . . . a dangerous dog . . . is guilty of a misdemeanor." The Chairman suggested if a person had one of these dogs he would have to immediately dispose of the dog or be guilty of a misdemeanor. How could a person (under Section 1(c)(2)) have a dog which was continuing the behavior of being menacing if, indeed, the person had to dispose of the animal. Mr. Rice replied the intent of the bill was to protect the public in general. If a person had such a dog, allowing it to get loose or allowing it to be owned and kept was not a protection of the general public.
Questioning the language on Section 1, subsection 4 of the amendment, Mr. Gibbons asked if the person who knowingly purchased a dangerous dog and accepted the transfer of ownership would be guilty of a misdemeanor. Mr. Rice said he would be. Responding to questions posed by Mr. Gibbons regarding transfers and subsequent misdemeanor penalties, Mr. Rice noted current law did penalize ownership and keeping, but did not define "vicious," and this was the intent of the bill. He agreed there were some language problems, but the proposed bill was better than the current law. Mr. Rice suggested words "owns, keeps" be deleted from Section 1, subsection 4 of the amendment.
Mr. Schulze indicated the inconsistency might be in the term "transfer without full disclosure the ownership of . . .". He recommended Section 1, subsection 4 should read "a person who knowingly owns or keeps a dangerous or vicious dog is guilty of a misdemeanor."
Following some discussion, Chairman Sader suggested a seven-day grace period be written into the bill. Additional discussion involved documentation and proof of viciousness, private property considerations, alternatives to destroying a vicious animal, definitions and standards of "dangerous" and "vicious," and the terms "potentially dangerous dogs" and "menacing."
Mr. Scherer asked Mr. Rice if there should be some provision which would allow someone to transfer a dog to someone who could handle the dog properly. Mr. Rich agreed with Mr. Scherer's comments and suggested including the language "keeping the dangerous dog in a negligent manner" be the threshold for a misdemeanor. He also recommended deleting the word "dangerous" in subsection 4. Thus, the only time a person would have to put a dog to sleep would be if it was vicious.
Mr. Gibbons questioned whether the language of Section 1, subsection 1(II), "Not confined in a cage, pen or vehicle" included an enclosed yard. Mr. Rice answered "enclosed yard" would mean the premises of the owner or keeper, as seen in Section 1, subsection 1(I).
Tom Bentz, representative of the Nevada Alliance for Responsible Animal Use, testified in favor of AB 89. Mr. Bentz indicated most large breeding clubs, responsible pet shops and many animal lovers were represented by his group. He acknowledged there was some concern by non-dog owners on some of the issues raised by the committee, especially the issue of criminal ownership of a dog.
Mr. Bentz was ready to speak in favor of the negotiated amendments to the bill, but said he believed the issues raised by the committee needed further consideration.
Curtis Risley, Risk Manager for Sierra Pacific Power Company, spoke in favor of AB 89. He said he believed the legislation would offer some form of protection for meter readers who, as a group, were probably the most vulnerable people to vicious dogs. Although meter readers were trained to ward off attacks from vicious dogs, the statistics showed they were still bitten.
Representing the Reno Kennel Club, Sierra Nevada Collie Club and Pet Shop Owners, Darl Thiessens, spoke in favor of AB 89. Mr. Thiessens explained the differences should be on "owning and keeping a dangerous dog." He believed there should be language to require an owner to do something to alleviate or protect the public from that type of dog. A person should be able to keep a dog as long as the animal was trained to stop the behavior or confined in a manner to stop the conduct, Mr. Thiessens opined. This would allow the person with a dog who exhibited dangerous tendencies to continue to keep the dog without having to put it to sleep.
Mr. Thiessens suggested a 90-day period should be provided in which a person could show proof they had taken measures to alleviate the situation. However, if a dog was then kept in a manner which did not protect the public, there should be a felony penalty.
A brief discussion followed.
ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH MOVED TO ADOPT AMENDMENT 701 AND LANGUAGE READING, "A PERSON WHO KNOWINGLY OWNS OR KEEPS A VICIOUS DOG FOR MORE THAN 7 DAYS AFTER HE HAS ACTUAL NOTICE THAT THE DOG IS VICIOUS IS GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR" AND DO PASS AB 89.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Toomin still had serious concerns about: 1) attacks occurring on private property; and 2) documentation (proof) of attacks.
Chairman Sader acknowledged the difficulty of "proving." It would probably have to be left to the circumstance of the case. The Sheriff's department could satisfy some obligation by canvassing a neighborhood, but such activity was not currently conducted for any other sort of criminal activity.
Mr. Sader explained Mr. Toomin's first concern about the attack on the premises was a policy issue for the committee to decide.
Mr. Sader requested a roll call vote.
THE MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMEN ANDERSON, PORTER AND SADER VOTED NO, ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE, AND ALL OTHERS VOTED YES.)
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:14 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
CHANDRA PENDERLAND
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Judiciary
June 25, 1993
Page: 1