Horse$hit. There are already provisions to avoid civil liability when any pedestrian gets hit for not entering the road without looking, fails to use a crosswalk.
The "don't do it intentionally" BS part reminds me of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt6kKhlX8vU
So I'm looking at the text of the proposed bill (bolding is mine). This is for torts only. It extends tort immunity to drivers when:
"(a) A person driving an automobile who is exercising due care and injures another person who is participating in a protest or demonstration and is blocking traffic in a public right-of-way ...
(b) A person shall not be immune from civil liability if the actions leading to the injury were willful or wanton."So in order to claim the immunity, a driver would need to be both exercising due care as well as not acting in a willful or wanton manner during the tort.
Here is how the Tennessee code defines "due care" as applied to licensed drivers:
TCA 55-8-136(a) "
Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this chapter, every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian upon any roadway ...
(b) Notwithstanding any speed limit or zone in effect at the time, or right-of-way rules that may be applicable, every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care by operating the vehicle at a safe speed, by maintaining a safe lookout, by keeping the vehicle under proper control and by devoting full time and attention to operating the vehicle, under the existing circumstances as necessary in order to be able to see and to avoid endangering life, limb or property and to see and avoid colliding with any other vehicle or person [/b] ..."
Here is how the Tennessee courts define "willful and wanton" (Bolding mine again):
Schenk v. Gwaltney, 309 S.W. 2d 424
"To hold one guilty of ‘willful’ or ‘wanton’ conduct, it must be shown that he was conscious of his conduct and with knowledge of existing conditions that injury would probably result, and with reckless indifference to consequences, he consciously and intentionally did some wrongful act or omitted some duty which produced the injuries ..."So criminal liability is not at issue, just allocation of damages in tort. I live in a contributory negligence State so we don't have to deal with this crock, but Tennessee is a modified comparative negligence State, so I'm guessing that may be an impetus for the change. My reading is that a driver cannot claim this tort immunity if they speed, if they aren't looking at what is in their path, if they aren't attentive enough to stop an avoidable mistake under the circumstances (like a crowd), or if they do any act with their car which will logically harm one of the protesters. Like I said, comparative negligence tort law is not my field, but it seems like this is just some GOP Tort reformers trying to codify a limited last clear chance defense; the common law one went bye-bye when the Tennessee Supreme Court adopted comparative negligence. I don't see this increasing the likelihood that any SA assholes are going to drive over White Rose protesters.
