BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 797
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 23, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mark Stone, Chair
AB 797
(Steinorth) - As Amended August 1, 2016
FOR CONCURRENCE
SUBJECT: MOTOR VEHICLES: RESCUE OR PROVISION OF CARE FOR
ANIMAL: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY
KEY ISSUE: SHOULD a person who reasonably and in good faith
believes that an animal is in immediate danger if not removed
from a locked vehicle be immunized from civil and criminal
liability if he or she follows specified steps to forcibly gain
entry to the vehicle and rescue the animal?
SYNOPSIS
Despite existing law that prohibits pet owners from leaving an
animal unattended in a vehicle under dangerous conditions, and
despite public awareness campaigns warning against this
practice, proponents of this bill report that citizens continue
to call law enforcement hundreds of times per year to help
rescue animals from unattended vehicles because they believe are
endangered, usually because of hot temperatures inside. These
proponents, including the Humane Society of the United States
and the Los Angeles County District Attorney, also contend that
AB 797
Page 2
many of these callers express the desire to rescue the animals
themselves by breaking into the vehicle, but are deterred from
taking action due to fear of being sued or possibly arrested.
Indeed, while existing law does not prevent law enforcement and
emergency responders from forcibly entering a vehicle to rescue
an animal, a bystander who takes matters into his or her own
hands and breaks into a car to rescue an animal potentially
faces civil or criminal liability, depending on the
circumstances. The goal of this bill--to encourage people to
take action to potentially save the life of an animal left
unattended in a vehicle and facing immediate danger-appears to
be in line with other measures passed by the Legislature in
recent years that provide immunity from liability for lay people
who voluntarily do something they are not obligated to do, such
as render medical aid in certain emergency situations, in order
to prevent death and injury.
Accordingly, in order to encourage bystanders to rescue
endangered animals from vehicles and prevent unnecessary
suffering and death of animals, this bill seeks to establish
qualified immunity from civil and criminal liability for
property damage or trespass to a vehicle for any person who
reasonably and in good faith takes prescribed steps to rescue an
animal facing imminent danger from an unattended motor vehicle.
The specific steps outlined by this bill include, among other
things: (1) determining the vehicle is locked or that there is
otherwise no reasonable manner for the animal to be removed from
the vehicle; (2) contacting local law enforcement prior to
forcibly entering the vehicle; (3) using no more force than
necessary to enter the vehicle; and (4) immediately turning the
animal over to law enforcement personnel who respond to the
scene. The civil and criminal immunity provided by this bill is
contingent upon all of the specified steps being followed, but
only extends to property damage or trespass to a vehicle, and
not more broadly to rendering aid to the animal itself or any
other liability that may arise. The bill is opposed by groups
of dog owners, including the American Kennel Club and the
California Federation of Dog Clubs, who contend that rescuing
AB 797
Page 3
animals should strictly be handled by law enforcement
responders, not Good Samaritans, and that the bill could have
unintended consequences.
SUMMARY: Exempts a person from civil and criminal liability for
property damage or trespass to a motor vehicle if the property
damage or trespass occurred while the person was rescuing an
animal under specified circumstances. Specifically, this bill:
1)Provides that a person is not prevented 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.
2)Provides that a person who removes an animal from a vehicle in
accordance with 1) above is not criminally liable for actions
taken reasonably and in good faith if the person does all of
the following:
a) Determines the vehicle is locked or there is otherwise
no reasonable manner for the animal to be removed from the
vehicle.
b) 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.
AB 797
Page 4
c) Has contacted a local law enforcement agency, the fire
department, animal control, or the "911" emergency service
prior to forcibly entering the vehicle.
d) 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.
e) Used no more force to enter the vehicle and remove the
animal from the vehicle than was necessary under the
circumstances.
f) Immediately turns the animal over to a representative
from law enforcement, animal control, or another emergency
responder who responds to the scene.
3)Provides 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 provisions specified in 2) above. Clarify
that this immunity from civil liability for property damage to
a motor vehicle does not affect a person's civil liability or
immunity from civil liability for rendering aid to an animal.
4)Clarifies that firefighters are included among those public
officers that are authorized under existing law to follow
specified procedures to rescue an animal from a motor vehicle.
EXISTING LAW:
AB 797
Page 5
1)Prohibits 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, or lack of food or water, or other
circumstances that could reasonably be expected to cause
suffering, disability, or death to the animal. (Penal Code
Section 597.7 (a). All further references are to this code
unless otherwise stated.)
2)Provides that a first conviction for violation of the above
rule is punishable by a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars
($100) per animal, unless the animal suffers great bodily
injury, in which case the violation is punishable by a fine
not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500), imprisonment in a
county jail not exceeding six months, or by both a fine and
imprisonment. Further provides that any subsequent violation
of this section, regardless of injury to the animal, is also
punishable by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars
($500), imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six
months, or by both a fine and imprisonment. (Section 597.7
(b).)
3)Provides that these provisions do not prevent any peace
officer, humane officer, or animal control officer from
following specified procedures to rescue an animal from a
motor vehicle. (Section 597.7 (c).)
FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
COMMENTS: This bill co-sponsored by the Humane Society of the
United States and the Los Angeles County District Attorney,
seeks to establish qualified immunity from civil and criminal
AB 797
Page 6
liability for property damage or trespass to a motor vehicle for
any person who reasonably and in good faith takes prescribed
steps to rescue an animal facing imminent danger from an
unattended motor vehicle. According to the author:
Leaving an animal unattended in a vehicle in harmful
conditions is currently against the law. Unfortunately,
many pet owners are unaware of how quickly temperatures
rise inside of a car, even on a mildly warm day. The
statistics are staggering: Even when it is 80 degrees
outside, a car can heat up to 99 degrees in just 10
minutes, and can reach 114 degrees in 30 minutes. [citation
omitted.]
Citizens call law enforcement hundreds of times per year to
report dogs stuck suffering in hot cars. Unfortunately,
these cases are not always the top priority of our law
enforcement, and they may not arrive in time to save the
animal's life - meanwhile, the Good Samaritan citizen is
left standing by, watching an animal suffer, scared to act
out of a legitimate fear for legal repercussions. AB 797
establishes civil and criminal legal immunity for any
person who acts to rescue an animal facing imminent danger
while left unattended in a vehicle. . . (The bill) provides
legal assurance to Good Samaritan citizens that if they
take action to save an animal from a cruel, hot-car death,
they cannot be sued for rescue-related vehicle damages.
Background on liability associated with unattended animals in
motor vehicles. In 2006, the Legislature enacted SB 1806
(Figueroa), Ch. 431, Stats. 2006, which prohibits any 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, or
lack of food or water, or other circumstances that could
reasonably be expected to cause suffering, disability, or death
AB 797
Page 7
to the animal. Under this statute, Penal Code Section 597.7, a
person who violates this law faces criminal penalties from up to
$100 for a first conviction if the animal does not suffer great
bodily injury, or up to $500 and six months' in county jail, or
both, if the animal does suffer great bodily injury.
At the same time, SB 1806 created a framework for peace
officers, humane officers, and animal control officers to
legally remove an animal from a motor vehicle if the animal's
safety appears to be in immediate danger, as specified. Under
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. In addition, the officer must take
the animal to an animal shelter or other place of safekeeping,
or, if deemed necessary, to a veterinary hospital for treatment.
While SB 1806 initially authorized both civil and criminal
immunity, the bill was subsequently amended to remove the
immunity language. Instead, the bill was amended to say that it
does not affect existing liabilities or immunities in current
law, or create any new immunities or liabilities. (Section
597.7 (c)(5).) Put another way, the legislation deliberately
sought to not affect existing liability or immunity from
liability for damaging a car to rescue an animal; for injury to
an animal being rescued; or for injury to another person caused
by the "rescued" animal after being freed from confinement in
the vehicle (e.g. an escaped dog at-large).
Background on immunity from liability under Good Samaritan laws.
Generally speaking, under California law, everyone is
responsible for 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
AB 797
Page 8
person. (Civil Code Section 1714 (a).) Existing law also
establishes that every person has a duty to abstain from
injuring the person or property of another, or infringing upon
any of his or her rights. (Civil Code Section 1708.) Case law
provides 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 or her legal rights, the
actor must see to it that such injury or violation does not
follow, or must expect to be liable for damages-regardless of
his or her motive or the degree of care with which he or she
performed the act. (See McKenna v. Pacific E. R. Co. (1930) 104
Cal.App. 538, 542.)
Under existing common law tort rules, a person who voluntarily
comes to the aid of another person suffering a medical emergency
is immune from liability so long as that person acts in a
reasonably prudent manner under the circumstances. In addition,
in 2009, California adopted a so-called "Good Samaritan" statute
which grants qualified immunity to any person who renders
medical or non-medical aid in an emergency, so long as that
person acts in good faith and not for compensation, and so long
as that person's conduct is not grossly negligent or willful or
wanton. (Health & Safety Code Section 1799.102.) Notably, this
statute applies to the rendering of "emergency medical or
non-medical care," which has never been interpreted to apply to
the rescue of an animal, rather than a human being.
In recent years this Committee has heard, and the Legislature
has enacted, legislation providing immunity from liability for
lay people who voluntarily render medical aid in certain
emergency situations, such as administering cardiopulmonary
resuscitation (CPR) or applying an automated external
defibrillator (AED). In each of those cases, qualified immunity
from liability was approved in order to promote the policy goal
of encouraging bystanders to intervene in an emergency situation
AB 797
Page 9
to render assistance and even save the life of another person.
In the same vein, this bill seeks similar qualified immunity to
encourage people to take action to potentially save the life of
an animal left unattended in a vehicle and facing immediate
danger.
Anecdotal evidence indicates continuing need to encourage rescue
of animals from unattended vehicles. Despite existing law that
prohibits leaving animals unattended in dangerous conditions,
and despite education campaigns warning against this practice,
proponents of this bill report that animals continue to be left
in unattended vehicles in alarming numbers. According to "My Dog
Is Cool," an organized campaign which seeks to educate citizens
about the dangers of hot-car animal deaths: (1) the Sacramento,
CA region reported receiving 50 calls to 9-1-1 about dogs left
in hot cars in June 2014; (2) the British Columbia SPCA reported
receiving 228 calls to rescue dogs that had been left in hot
cars in June 2014; and (3) the Davis County Animal Care and
Control in Salt Lake City, UT reported receiving 150 calls about
dogs being left in cars from June to Aug 2013. (See
http://mydogiscool.com/newsroom/hot-car-incidents.)
According to the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
(LACDA), existing law should be updated to remove the fear of
liability as a deterrent against rescuing animals in unattended
vehicles from dangerous conditions. They state:
One of the most common questions our Animal Cruelty
Coordinator gets from members of the public is whether they
can legally make entry into a vehicle to save an animal.
When our office tells them that the law only allows law
enforcement and animal control officers to forcibly remove
an animal from a vehicle, most express frustration and say
they are often torn about what action, if any, to take when
they see an animal in a hot car. As much as people would
like to help an animal trapped in a vehicle, they are often
AB 797
Page 10
deterred from taking action due to fear of being sued
and/or arrested.
In (one) 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 they waited, they watched as the
animal continued to suffer and eventually die. The
bystanders told law enforcement that they considered
entering into the vehicle but decided against taking action
because they were afraid of being arrested or sued.
Specified steps for receiving qualified immunity for rescuing an
animal from an unattended vehicle. In order to further
encourage the rescue of animals in such circumstances, this bill
would authorize a person to take 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.
In order to receive immunity from criminal and civil liability
under this bill, a person seeking to rescue an animal must
strictly follow specific steps identified by this bill prior to
entering the vehicle, including: 1) determine the vehicle is
locked or that 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; and 3) contact local law enforcement prior to
AB 797
Page 11
forcibly entering the vehicle. In addition, the person is
required: 4) to use no more force than necessary to enter the
vehicle and remove the animal from the vehicle; 5) to remain
with the animal at a safe location after gaining entry into the
vehicle, reasonably close to the vehicle, until an emergency
responder arrives; and 6) immediately turn the animal over to
law enforcement or other emergency responder who responds to the
scene.
If all of these steps are followed, the bill provides the
rescuing person immunity from civil liability for property
damage or trespass to the vehicle. Importantly, however, the
bill is crafted to ensure that this qualified immunity does not
affect a person's civil liability for rendering aid to the
animal itself. Thus, a person still has a duty to act
reasonably in rendering aid to the animal itself, or potentially
be held liable for any injury or harm arising from rendering
such aid (as the bill only provides immunity for damage to the
vehicle.)
The bill also provides immunity from criminal liability for
actions taken reasonably and in good faith if the person follows
the above specified steps in removing an animal from an
unattended vehicle. According to the LACDA, a rescuer acting
reasonably and in good faith would lack the specific intent
which is an element of most crimes that could be charged against
a person for breaking into a vehicle. However, there may be
some general intent crimes that could conceivably be charged.
While it is unlikely that a person acting in good faith to
rescue an animal would be charged with a crime or sued in any
case, this bill will remove the possibility by immunizing the
rescuer as long as he or she follows the steps set forth in the
bill.
Other clarifying amendments. The bill also makes clarifying
amendments to existing law outlining the responsibilities of law
AB 797
Page 12
enforcement and other public officers in removing animals from a
motor vehicle. First, the bill clarifies that firefighters and
other emergency responders are included among those public
officers that are authorized under existing law to follow
specified procedures to rescue an animal from a motor vehicle.
Second, the bill clarifies that certain responsibilities apply
not only when the official directly removes an animal from a
vehicle, but also when the official indirectly takes possession
of or receives an animal that has been removed from a vehicle by
another person. Finally, the bill clarifies that the owner of
an animal removed from a vehicle may be required to pay for
charges that have accrued for the maintenance, care, medical
treatment, or impoundment of the animal after an emergency
responder has taken the animal to a shelter or veterinary
hospital pursuant to this bill.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The bill is supported by a number of
animal welfare and advocacy groups, including the ASPCA, the
Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association, and the Humane
Society of the United States. HSUS writes in support:
(This bill) 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.
Every year, thousands of our companion animals succumb to
heatstroke in hot, unattended vehicles. Many times
concerned citizens and law enforcement can locate the car's
owner in time to take the necessary steps to keep the
animal safe. However, there are situations when concerned
citizens are unable to find the owner or law enforcement or
AB 797
Page 13
animal control is tending to other priorities and can't
arrive in time to rescue the animal. And minutes do matter
when an animal is trapped in a hot car. Protecting animals
from an agonizing death is a problem we can all agree to
prevent. AB 797 is an important, bi-partisan step toward
achieving a more humane California, and a chance to avoid
unnecessary animal suffering.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The bill is opposed by the American
Kennel Club (AKC), the Animal Council, and the California
Federation of Dog Clubs (CFODC), who contend that the bill could
result in unintended consequences. CFODC states:
When was the last time you left your dog supplied with food
and water in the car while you made a quick stop at the
market on a cool day? There have already been many cases
where well-intended bystanders broke into a vehicle to
"rescue" a dog, alarmed simply because it may be exhibiting
normal, non-distressed behavior like panting or parking, 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 loss or death of his dog
in the course of the "rescue."
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
AB 797
Page 14
assessment and intervention in such situations.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Humane Society of the United States (co-sponsor)
Los Angeles County District Attorney (co-sponsor)
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
AB 797
Page 15
San Francisco SPCA
Social Compassion in Legislation
Opposition
American Kennel Club
California Federation of Dog Clubs
The Animal Council
Analysis Prepared by:Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334