Introduced
by
To establish that a municipality being sued for an injury related to a sidewalk “discontinuity” may any use any common law defense available to regular people, including that the condition was “open and obvious.” Current law limits local government defenses in these suits (for example, having to show that a "vertical discontinuity" was less than two inches).
Referred to the Committee on Judiciary
Reported without amendment
With the recommendation that the bill be referred to the Committee on Local Government.
Referred to the Committee on Local Government and Municipal Finance
Reported without amendment
Without amendment and with the recommendation that the bill pass.
Amendment offered
by
To still allow the "trier of fact" to consider whether the condition was "open and obvious" in assessing the degree of comparative fault.
The amendment failed by voice vote
Passed in the House 55 to 51 (details)
Referred to the Committee on Government Operations
Reported without amendment
With the recommendation that the bill pass.
Amendment offered
by
To restrict courts from accepting an "open and obvious" defense, except in determining which party in a suit was most at fault.
The amendment failed by voice vote
Passed in the Senate 22 to 15 (details)
To establish that a municipality being sued for an injury related to a sidewalk “discontinuity” may any use any common law defense available to regular people, including that the condition was “open and obvious.” Current law limits local government defenses in these suits (for example, having to show that a "vertical discontinuity" was less than two inches).
