BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 797|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 797
Author: Steinorth (R) and Santiago (D), et al.
Amended: 6/6/16 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/14/16
AYES: Jackson, Moorlach, Anderson, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning,
Wieckowski
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/28/16
AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Glazer, Leno, Liu, Monning, Stone
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 4/30/15 (Consent) - See last page for
vote
SUBJECT: Motor vehicles: rescue or provision of care for
animal: civil and criminal liability
SOURCE: Humane Society of the United States
Los Angeles County District Attorney
DIGEST: This bill provides 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 also provides 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: (1) applies existing law responsibilities of peace
officers, humane officers, or animal control officers who remove
an animal from a vehicle to firefighters or other emergency
responders as well; (2) specifies that existing law does not
AB 797
Page 2
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) provides that such a
person is not criminally liable for actions taken reasonably and
in good faith, as specified.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Provides, generally, that every person has, subject to the
qualifications and restrictions provided by law, the right of
protection from bodily restraint or harm, personal insult,
defamation, and injury to his personal relations.
2)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. 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 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).)
3)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.
AB 797
Page 3
4)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. Provides, separately, 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. Provides that property is either: (a) real or
immovable; or (b) personal or movable. Provides that every
kind of property that is not real is personal.
5)Provides, under Section 597.7 of the Penal Code, 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.
6)Provides, under Section 597.7 of the Penal Code, 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. 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. Requires, further, 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.
7)Provides that Section 597.7 does not affect in any way
AB 797
Page 4
existing liabilities or immunities in current law, or create
any new immunities or liabilities.
This bill:
1)Applies the provisions of Section 597.7, above, for peace,
humane, and animal control officers to firefighters and other
emergency responders, as well.
2)Provides 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. Provides,
further, 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.
1)Adds a new civil statute to provide that there shall not be
any civil liability on the part of, and no cause of action
AB 797
Page 5
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. Provides that this immunity
does not affect a person's civil liability or immunity from
civil liability for rendering aid to an animal.
2)Makes other conforming and technical changes.
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
inside a closed car, California enacted SB 1806 (Figueroa,
Chapter 431, Statutes of 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
AB 797
Page 6
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 (LADA) 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 LADA 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
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.
AB 797
Page 7
Comments
As stated by 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
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.
AB 797
Page 8
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.]
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:NoLocal: No
SUPPORT: (Verified7/12/16)
Humane Society of the United States (co-source)
Los Angeles County District Attorney (co-source)
ASPCA
Best Friends Animal Society
Civil Justice Association of California
Councilmember David J. Toro, City of Colton
Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association
Marin Humane Society
San Bernardino County Sheriff John McMahon
San Diego County District Attorney's Office
San Diego Humane Society
San Francisco SPCA
Social Compassion in Legislation
One individual
OPPOSITION: (Verified7/18/16)
American Kennel Club
California Federation of Dog Clubs
The Animal Council
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: 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
AB 797
Page 9
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." [ . . . ]
The co-sponsor, Humane Society of the United States, writes that
"[p]lenty 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. [ . . . ] 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."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The California Federation of Dog
Clubs (CFODC) states in opposition:
It would be impossible in most cases to determine if a dog is
in "imminent danger from heat, cold, lack of adequate
ventilation, lack of food or water, or other [undefined]
AB 797
Page 10
circumstances that could reasonably be expected to cause
suffering, disability, or death to the animal." [ . . . ]
There have already been many cases where well-intended
bystanders broke into a vehicle to "rescue" a dog, alarmed
because it may be exhibiting normal, non-distressed behavior
like panting or barking, or may be safely confined in a crate.
A "rescuer" could put himself at risk of being bitten, put
the dog at risk of being lost or hit by a car, and put the
public at risk due to an escaped dog-at-large. The
unfortunate owner could find himself liable for unwarranted
damages to his property, suffering the loss of his pet and
would have no recourse for damage to the car or the loss or
death of his dog in the course of the "rescue." He may even
find himself sued for a dog bite situation!
This bill is of particular concern to those who participate in
dog events and activities involving multiple dogs which may
spend time being responsibly housed in a motor home or other
vehicle. Dog enthusiasts are highly aware of the dangers of
temperature extremes in vehicles, and are rarely guilty of
putting their valued animals at-risk in such dangerous
situations.
The CFODC believes that "rescue" should be handled by
professionals who, in the vast majority of cases, can be on
the scene within minutes, and who are better prepared and
equipped to deal with assessment and intervention in such
situations. [Emphasis omitted.]
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 4/30/15
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom,
Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Chang, Chau,
Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd,
Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia,
Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove,
Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones,
Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low,
Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin,
Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea,
Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago,
Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber,
Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins
AB 797
Page 11
NO VOTE RECORDED: Campos, Chávez, Gomez
Prepared by:Ronak Daylami / JUD. / (916) 651-4113
7/29/16 10:43:33
**** END ****