Dangerous Instrumentality Reform: S.B. 862 (2019)
Provides that the lessor of special mobile equipment that causes
Provides that the lessor of special mobile equipment that causes injury, death, or damage while leased under a lease agreement is not liable for the acts of the lessee or lessee’s agent or employee if the lease agreement requires documented proof of insurance coverage with limits of at least $250,000/$500,000 for bodily injury liability and $100,000 for property damage liability, or at least $750,000 for combined property damage liability and bodily injury liability. Provides that the failure of the lessee to maintain insurance coverage required by the lease agreement does not impose liability on the lessor. Special mobile equipment are vehicles not designed or used primarily to transport persons or property and that are only incidentally operated or moved over a highway. Examples include ditch digging apparatus, well-boring apparatus, and road construction and maintenance machinery, draglines, self-propelled cranes and earthmoving equipment. The bill responds to the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Newton v. Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation, which found that a loader is a dangerous instrumentality and thus subject to Florida’s dangerous instrumentality doctrine. The dangerous instrumentality doctrine imposes “strict vicarious liability upon the owner of a motor vehicle who voluntarily entrusts that motor vehicle to an individual whose negligent operation causes damage to another.”
ATRA’s statement on passage of Amendment 1 to Illinois House Bill 3360
ATRA’s statement on Amendment 1 to Illinois House Bill 3360
ATRA President Tiger Joyce released the following statement in response to the unprecedented attack on the U.S. Capitol building on January 6:
ATRA voices its disappointment as Congress fails to include liability protections in its latest COVID-19 relief package.
ATRA President Tiger Joyce writes in this op-ed about a growing trend of state courts bucking SCOTUS precedent when it comes to personal jurisdiction.
Activism in AG’s office, Supreme Court’s acceptance of lawsuit funding and loose venue rules to blame