WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

A 345

Provides that limited liability for persons held jointly liable shall not apply to parties held liable for failing to provide reasonable security

2025 Regular Session Introduced by William Colton and 3 co-sponsors

Bill A 345 narrows or eliminates limited liability for jointly liable parties who fail to provide reasonable security.

REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · A 345

Summary: Bill A 345

Overview

Bill A 345 seeks to change how liability is allocated among parties who are jointly liable, by removing the traditional limited liability protection for parties who are found liable for failing to provide reasonable security. The bill was introduced on January 8, 2025 and has been referred to the Judiciary Committee. It has a companion measure in the Senate (S 3160).

Purpose and Intent

  • Primary aim: To ensure that, in cases of joint liability, parties who failed to provide reasonable security can be held fully responsible for damages or losses, rather than benefiting from a capped or limited liability exposure.
  • Policy focus: Strengthening accountability for security shortcomings in contexts where parties have a duty to provide reasonable security (the bill’s text would specify the exact contexts and definitions, such as property owners, managers, event organizers, or security providers).

Key Provisions (as indicated by the title)

  • Eliminates or narrows the application of limited liability for persons who are jointly liable if they are found liable for failing to provide reasonable security.
  • Establishes or references a standard of “reasonable security” that must be met to avoid enhanced liability; the precise definition and scope would be detailed in the bill’s language.
  • Applies to joint liability scenarios, potentially affecting multiple liable parties in a shared duty context.

Who or What Would Be Affected

  • Likely affected entities include property owners, managers, security providers, event organizers, and others with joint liability in relation to security duties.
  • Insurance and risk management fields may experience changes in exposure and coverage considerations.
  • Defendants and plaintiffs in security-related claims could see shifts in liability outcomes, depending on whether reasonable security was provided.

Procedural and Timeline Aspects

  • Introduced: January 8, 2025.
  • Status: Referred to the Judiciary Committee (listed twice in the legislative actions on the same date; both entries indicate referral to Judiciary).
  • Next steps: Typically, the Judiciary Committee would review, hold hearings, and possibly amend the bill before advancing to the floor for consideration. Specific timelines would depend on committee calendars and subsequent legislative actions.

Sponsorship

  • Primary Sponsor: Amy Paulin
  • Co-sponsors: Linda Rosenthal, William Colton, Rebecca Seawright

Related Legislation

  • Related bills (prior-session) include A 1735, A 411, A 335, A 8644, A 2088, A 361, A 172, A 118.
  • Companion (Senate): S 3160 (listed as a companion bill).

Potential Impacts and Considerations

  • Legal and financial: Could increase liability exposure for parties with joint responsibility where security was lacking.
  • Security standards: Might incentivize stricter security measures and clearer duty of care obligations.
  • Practical implementation: The definition of “reasonable security” and the scope of joint liability will be critical to how broadly or narrowly the bill applies.
  • Economic effects: Potentially higher litigation costs and insurance considerations for businesses and organizations subject to these rules.

Note: The bill text would provide precise definitions, scope, and application. This summary reflects the information available from the bill’s title, sponsor information, and stated intent.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.