House Passes Bill to Shield Volunteers

A bill to shield volunteers from some liability claims that result from their charity work passed the House despite criticism that it wrongly steps on states’ prerogatives.

“Our nation has an extensive history of volunteering,” Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) said before Wednesday’s 390-35 vote. “Now our tradition is in danger as never before. One of the reasons is frivolous lawsuits.”

The bill would protect a volunteer from liability for harm caused while properly engaged in volunteer work unless the harm was caused by willful or criminal misconduct; conscious, flagrant indifference; or resulted from a crime of violence, international terrorism, a sexual offense or a violation of civil rights law. A volunteer under the influence of drugs or alcohol also would not be immune from liability.

Inglis cited a poll that indicates one in six potential volunteers withholds services in fear of lawsuits. “If you’re being a good Samaritan and there’s an accident that isn’t your fault, you shouldn’t get sued,” he said.

Although the bill is almost identical to one passed May 1 on a 99-1 Senate vote, the legislation must return to the Senate for a final vote to approve minor changes it contains before it can go to President Clinton’s desk.

Several House members criticized the bill because it would replace state laws unless the states acted affirmatively to opt out of its coverage.

“I personally like the bill, and if I were a member of a state Legislature, I would vote in favor of it,” said Rep. Donald A. Manzullo (R-Ill.). “But I disagree with federalizing tort law for volunteers.”

The Judiciary Committee’s report on the bill said: “It is not enough to leave it to the states to solve this problem. . . . State volunteer protection statutes are patchwork and inconsistent. . . . This current hodgepodge of state laws has not provided the buffer against liability that volunteers need and deserve.”

The House bill was far different from an original proposal by Rep. John Edward Porter (R-Ill.). That plan would not have preempted state laws unless states chose to adopt it. Another key change is that it focuses protection on volunteers, excluding the organizations for which they work.