BILL NUMBER: SB 1374	AMENDED
	BILL TEXT

	AMENDED IN SENATE  APRIL 23, 2012
	AMENDED IN SENATE  APRIL 9, 2012

INTRODUCED BY    Senator   Harman 
 Senators   Harman   and Correa 
    (   Coauthor:   Senator
  Correa   ) 
   (Coauthor: Assembly Member Wagner)

                        FEBRUARY 24, 2012

   An act to add Section 1713.5 to the Civil Code, relating to
liability.



	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


   SB 1374, as amended, Harman. Liability: good faith reliance on
administrative regulation.
   Existing law provides that every person is responsible, not only
for the result of his or her willful acts, but also 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 person, except so far as
the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the
injury upon himself or herself.
   Existing law governs the tort liability and immunity of, and
claims and actions against, public entities and their officers and
employees. Existing law provides that a public employee who acts in
good faith, without malice, and under the apparent authority of an
enactment that is unconstitutional, invalid, or inapplicable, is not
liable for an injury caused thereby, except to the extent that he or
she would have been liable had the enactment been constitutional,
valid, and applicable.
   This bill would provide that any person who relies upon a written
order, ruling, approval, interpretation, or enforcement policy of a
state agency shall not be liable or subject to punishment for a
violation of a civil statute or regulation in a judicial or
administrative proceeding if the person pleads and proves to the
trier of fact that, at the time the alleged act or omission occurred,
the person  was acting in good faith and in conformity with,
and in reliance on, an applicable state agency's written order,
ruling, approval, interpretation, or enforcement policy 
 had sought an applicable written order, ruling, approval,
interpretation, or enforcement policy from the state agency charged
with interpreting that area of law, and relied upon and conformed to
that order, ruling, approval, interpretation, or enforcement policy
 . The bill would provide that these provisions apply to all
actions and proceedings that have not resulted in a final judgment on
or after January 1, 2013, regardless of whether the action or
proceeding was commenced, or based upon, an alleged act or omission
that occurred before, on, or after January 1, 2013. 
Additionally, the bill would state that it would not require a state
agency to issue an order, ruling, approval, interpretation, or
enforcement policy. 
   Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

  SECTION 1.  Section 1713.5 is added to the Civil Code, to read:
   1713.5.  (a) Any person who relies upon a written order, ruling,
approval, interpretation, or enforcement policy of a state agency
shall not be liable or subject to punishment for a violation of a
civil statute or regulation in a judicial or administrative
proceeding if the person pleads and proves to the trier of fact that,
at the time the alleged act or omission occurred, the person
 was acting in good faith and in conformity with, and in
reliance on, an applicable state agency's written order, ruling,
approval, interpretation, or enforcement policy.   did
both of the following:  
   (1) Sought an applicable written order, ruling, approval,
interpretation, or enforcement policy from the state agency charged
with interpreting that particular area of law.  
   (2) Relied upon and conformed to the applicable written order,
ruling, approval, interpretation, or enforcement policy. 
   (b) (1) The affirmative defense provided in subdivision (a) shall
apply even if, after the alleged act or omission occurred, the order,
ruling, approval, interpretation, or enforcement policy upon which
the person relied is modified, rescinded, or determined by judicial
authority to be invalid or of no legal effect.
   (2) The affirmative defense provided in subdivision (a) shall not
apply if the alleged act or omission occurred after the order,
ruling, approval, interpretation, or enforcement policy upon which
the person relied is modified, rescinded, or determined by judicial
authority to be invalid or of no legal effect.
   (c) This section applies to all actions and proceedings that have
not resulted in a final judgment on or after January 1, 2013,
regardless of whether the action or proceeding was commenced, or
based upon, an alleged act or omission that occurred before, on, or
after January 1, 2013.
   (d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to give any greater
legal weight to an order, ruling, approval, interpretation, or
enforcement policy than it would otherwise have in the absence of
this section. 
   (e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require a state
agency to issue an order, ruling, approval, interpretation, or
enforcement policy.