BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 797
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB
797 (Steinorth and Santiago)
As Amended August 1, 2016
Majority vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | |(April 30, |SENATE: |37-0 |(August 15, |
| | |2015) | | |2016) |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
(vote not relevant)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|COMMITTEE VOTE: | 8-0 |(August 23, |RECOMMENDATION: |concur |
| | |2016) | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Jud.)
Original Committee Reference: A. & A.R.
SUMMARY: Exempts a person from civil and criminal liability for
property damage or trespass to a motor vehicle if the property
AB 797
Page 2
damage or trespass occurred while the person was rescuing an
animal under specified circumstances.
The Senate amendments delete the Assembly version of this bill,
and instead:
1)Provide 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)Provide 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.
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
AB 797
Page 3
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)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 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)Clarify 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:
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 (PEN) 597.7 (a).)
2)Provides that a first conviction for violation of the above
AB 797
Page 4
rule is punishable by a fine not exceeding $100 per animal,
unless the animal suffers great bodily injury, in which case
the violation is punishable by a fine not exceeding $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 $500,
imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months, or by
both a fine and imprisonment. (PEN 597.7 (b).)
3)Clarifies 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. (PEN 597.7 (c).)
FISCAL EFFECT: None
COMMENTS: This bill, co-sponsored by the Humane Society of the
United States and the Los Angeles County District Attorney
(LACDA), seeks to establish specified immunity from civil and
criminal liability for any person who acts to rescue an animal
facing imminent danger while left unattended in a motor vehicle.
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."
According to 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
AB 797
Page 5
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 deterred from taking action due to fear
of being sued and/or arrested."
In order to 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) determining the vehicle is
locked or that there is otherwise no reasonable manner for the
animal to be removed from the vehicle; 2) having 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) contacting local law enforcement prior to
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, this bill provides the
rescuing person immunity from civil liability for property
AB 797
Page 6
damage or trespass to the vehicle. Importantly, however, this
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 this bill only provides immunity for damage to the
vehicle.)
This 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 this
bill.
This bill also makes clarifying amendments to existing law
outlining the responsibilities of law enforcement and other
public officers in removing animals from a motor vehicle.
First, this 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, this 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, this 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.
Analysis Prepared by: Anthony Lew / JUD. /
AB 797
Page 7
(916) 319-2334 FN: 0004831