(1)Existing law provides certain individuals with immunity from civil liability under specific circumstances, including, among others, limiting the civil liability of a person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency medical or nonmedical care at the scene of an emergency, as specified.

This bill would further limit the exposure to civil liability of an emergency responder, defined as a paid or an unpaid volunteer or private entity acting within the scope of authority implicitly or expressly provided by a local public entity or a public employee of a local public entity to provide emergency services, for damage to an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system, if the damage was caused while the emergency responder was performing specific emergency services and the unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system was interfering with the provision of those emergency services.

(2)The Government Claims Act sets forth the general procedure for the presentation of a claim as a prerequisite to the commencement of an action for money or damages against a public entity, local public entity, or a public employee, and defines those terms for its purposes. The act prohibits liability against a public entity or public employee for, among other things, certain acts relating to the provision of fire protection and police and correctional activities, as specified.

This bill would further limit the exposure to civil liability of a local public entity or public employee of a local public entity for damage to an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system, if the damage was caused while the local public entity or public employee of a local public entity was performing specific emergency services and the unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system was interfering with the provision of those emergency services. The bill would specify that this immunity is in addition to any other immunity provided to a local public entity or public employee of a local public entity under law.

(1)Existing law provides certain individuals with immunity from civil liability under specific circumstances, including, among others, limiting the civil liability of a person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency medical or nonmedical care at the scene of an emergency, as specified.

This bill would further limit the exposure to civil liability of an emergency responder, defined as a paid or an unpaid volunteer or private entity acting within the scope of authority implicitly or expressly provided by a local public entity or a public employee of a local public entity to provide emergency services, for damage to an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system, if the damage was caused while the emergency responder was performing specific emergency services and the unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system was interfering with the provision of those emergency services.

(2)The Government Claims Act sets forth the general procedure for the presentation of a claim as a prerequisite to the commencement of an action for money or damages against a public entity, local public entity, or a public employee, and defines those terms for its purposes. The act prohibits liability against a public entity or public employee for, among other things, certain acts relating to the provision of fire protection and police and correctional activities, as specified.

This bill would further limit the exposure to civil liability of a local public entity or public employee of a local public entity for damage to an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system, if the damage was caused while the local public entity or public employee of a local public entity was performing specific emergency services and the unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system was interfering with the provision of those emergency services. The bill would specify that this immunity is in addition to any other immunity provided to a local public entity or public employee of a local public entity under law.

(1)Existing law provides certain individuals with immunity from civil liability under specific circumstances, including, among others, limiting the civil liability of a person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency medical or nonmedical care at the scene of an emergency, as specified.

This bill would further limit the exposure to civil liability of an emergency responder, defined as a paid or an unpaid volunteer or private entity acting within the scope of authority implicitly or expressly provided by a local public entity or a public employee of a local public entity to provide emergency services, for damage to an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system, if the damage was caused while the emergency responder was performing specific emergency services and the unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system was interfering with the provision of those emergency services.

(2)The Government Claims Act sets forth the general procedure for the presentation of a claim as a prerequisite to the commencement of an action for money or damages against a public entity public entity, local public entity, or a public employee, and defines those terms for its purposes. The act prohibits liability against a public entity or public employee for, among other things, certain acts relating to the provision of fire protection and police and correctional activities, as specified.

This bill would further limit the exposure to civil liability of a local public entity or public employee of a local public entity for damage to an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system, if the damage was caused while the local public entity or public employee of a local public entity was performing specific emergency services and the unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system was interfering with the provision of those emergency services. The bill would specify that this immunity is in addition to any other immunity provided to a local public entity or public employee of a local public entity under law.

(1)Existing law provides certain individuals with immunity from civil liability under specific circumstances, including, among others, limiting the civil liability of a person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency medical or nonmedical care at the scene of an emergency, as specified.

This bill would further limit the exposure to civil liability of an emergency responder, defined as a paid or an unpaid volunteer or private entity acting within the scope of authority implicitly or expressly provided by a public entity or a public employee to provide emergency services, for damages damage to an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system, if the damage was caused while the emergency responder was performing specific emergency services and the unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system was interfering with the provision of those emergency services.

(2)The Government Claims Act sets forth the general procedure for the presentation of a claim as a prerequisite to the commencement of an action for money or damages against a public entity or a public employee, and defines those terms for its purposes. The act prohibits liability against a public entity or public employee for, among other things, certain acts relating to the provision of fire protection and police and correctional activities, as specified.

This bill would further limit the exposure to civil liability of a public entity or public employee for damage to an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system, if the damage was caused while the public entity or public employee was performing specific emergency services and the unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system was interfering with the provision of those emergency services. The bill would specify that this immunity is in addition to any other immunity provided to a public entity or public employee under law.

(1)Existing law provides certain individuals with immunity from civil liability under specific circumstances, including, among others, limiting the civil liability of a person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency medical or nonmedical care at the scene of an emergency, as specified.

This bill would further limit the exposure to civil liability of an emergency responder, defined as a paid or an unpaid volunteer or private entity acting within the scope of authority implicitly or expressly provided by a public entity or a public employee to provide emergency services, for damages to an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system, if the damage was caused while the emergency responder was performing specific emergency services and the unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system was interfering with the provision of those emergency services.

(2)The Government Claims Act sets forth the general procedure for the presentation of a claim as a prerequisite to the commencement of an action for money or damages against a public entity or a public employee, and defines those terms for its purposes. The act prohibits liability against a public entity or public employee for, among other things, certain acts relating to the provision of fire protection and police and correctional activities, as specified.

This bill would further limit the exposure to civil liability of a public entity or public employee for damage to an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system, if the damage was caused while the public entity or public employee was performing specific emergency services and the unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system was interfering with the provision of those emergency services.

(1)Existing law provides certain individuals with immunity from civil liability under specific circumstances, including, among others, limiting the civil liability of a person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency medical or nonmedical care at the scene of an emergency, as specified.

This bill would further limit the exposure to civil liability of an emergency responder, defined as a paid or an unpaid volunteer or private entity acting within the scope of authority implicitly or expressly provided by a public entity or a public employee to provide emergency services, for damages to an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system, if the damage was caused while the emergency responder was performing specific emergency services and the unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system was interfering with the provision of those emergency services.

(2)The Government Claims Act sets forth the general procedure for the presentation of a claim as a prerequisite to the commencement of an action for money or damages against a public entity or a public employee, and defines those terms for its purposes. The act prohibits liability against a public entity or public employee for, among other things, certain acts relating to the provision of fire protection and police and correctional activities, as specified.

This bill would further limit the exposure to civil liability of a public entity or public employee for damage to an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system, if the damage was caused while the public entity or public employee was performing specific emergency services and the unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system was interfering with the provision of those emergency services.

(1)Existing law provides certain individuals with immunity from civil liability under specific circumstances, including, among others, limiting the civil liability of a person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency medical or nonmedical care at the scene of an emergency, as specified.

This bill would further limit the exposure to civil liability of an emergency responder, defined as a paid or unpaid volunteer or private entity acting within the scope of authority implicitly or expressly provided by a public entity or a public employee to provide emergency services, for damages to an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system, if the damage was caused while the emergency responder was performing specific emergency services and the unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system was interfering with the provision of those emergency services.

(2)The Government Claims Act sets forth the general procedure for the presentation of a claim as a prerequisite to the commencement of an action for money or damages against a public entity or a public employee, and defines those terms for its purposes. The act prohibits liability against a public entity or public employee for, among other things, certain acts relating to the provision of fire protection and police and correctional activities, as specified.

This bill would further limit the exposure to civil liability of a public entity or public employee for damage to an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system, if the damage was caused while the public entity or public employee was performing specific emergency services and the unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system was interfering with the provision of those emergency services.

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS  

Bill No: SB 807

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 3/29/16

AYES: Jackson, Moorlach, Anderson, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning, Wieckowski

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

SENATE FLOOR: 37-0, 5/5/16

AYES: Allen, Bates, Beall, Berryhill, Block, Cannella, De León, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Glazer, Hall, Hancock, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Huff, Jackson, Lara, Leno, Leyva, Liu, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Moorlach, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Pan, Pavley, Roth, Stone, Wieckowski, Wolk

NO VOTE RECORDED: Anderson, Runner, Vidak

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 8/22/16 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: California Police Chiefs Association

League of California Cities

DIGEST: This bill seeks to provide local public entities and public employees of local public entities with immunity from civil liability for any damage to an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system, if the damage was caused while the local public entity and public employee of the local public entity was providing, and the unmanned aircraft system was interfering with, the operation, support, or enabling of specified emergency services. This bill applies the same immunity protection for local public entities and public employees of local public entities, above, to emergency responders who are private entities or paid or unpaid volunteers, if those emergency responders are acting within the scope of authority implicitly or expressly provided by a local public entity or public employee of a local public entity.

Assembly Amendments (1) narrow the bill to only apply to local public entities and their employees and to those specified emergency responders who are acting within the scope of authority implicitly or expressly provided by a local public entity or a public employee of a local public entity; (2) specify that the bill’s immunity for local public entities and employees of public entities is in addition to any other immunity provided to those entities and employees under law; and (3) add a coauthor.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides, under the Civil Code, that besides the personal rights mentioned or recognized in the Government Code, every person has, subject to the qualifications and restrictions provided by law, the right of protection from bodily restraint or harm, from personal insult, from defamation, and from injury to his personal relations.
2. Provides that every person is bound, without contract, to abstain from injuring the person or property of another, or infringing upon any of his or her rights.
3. Provides that everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury to another caused by his or her lack of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or from lack of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself.
4. Specifies, under the Government Tort Claims Act (Act), rules of civil liability that apply to public entities and public employees in California. The Act generally provides that all public entities, state and local, are liable in tort to the extent declared by statute, subject to stated immunities and defenses. Public employees are liable to the same extent as private persons, subject to various immunities and defenses.
5. Defines a “public entity” to include the state, the Regents of the University of California, the Trustees of the California State University and the California State University, a county, city, district, public authority, public agency, and any other political subdivision or public corporation in the state. Defines a “public employee” to mean an employee of a public entity.
6. Governs the liability of public entities and public employees with regard to fire protection. Provides, generally, that neither a public agency nor public employee acting in the scope of his employment is liable for any injury resulting from the condition of fire protection or firefighting equipment or facilities, or for any injury caused fighting fires.

This bill:

1. Adds to the Act to provide that a local public entity or public employee of a local public entity shall not be liable for any damage to an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system, if the damage was caused while the emergency responder was providing, and the unmanned aircraft system was interfering with, the operation, support, or enabling of any of the following emergency services:

• Ambulance services, including, but not limited to, air ambulance services;
• Firefighting or firefighting-related services, including, but not limited to, air services related to firefighting or firefighting-related services; or
• Search and rescue services, including, but not limited to, air search and rescue services.

1. Adds to the Civil Code that an emergency responder shall not be liable for any damage to an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system, if the damage was caused while the emergency responder was providing, and the unmanned aircraft system was interfering with, the operation, support, or enabling of any of the emergency services listed above.
2. Defines “emergency responder” for these purposes to include either of the following, if acting within the scope of authority implicitly or expressly provided by a local public entity or a public employee of a local public entity, as specified, to provide emergency services:

• A paid or unpaid volunteer; or
• A private entity.

1. Defines, among other things:

• “Unmanned aircraft” to mean an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft.
• “Unmanned aircraft system” to mean an unmanned aircraft and associated elements, including, but not limited to, communication links and the components that control the unmanned aircraft that are required for the pilot in command to operate safely and efficiently in the national airspace system.

Background

As with most new technologies, the possibility of having potentially thousands of commercial and private unmanned aerial vehicles or “drones” take to California’s skies in the coming years has called into question how well state law is prepared to incorporate these vehicles – and the policy issues associated with their operation – into California’s legal landscape.  At present, the commercial use of drones in the skies over California is fairly restricted; however, the recreational or hobbyist use of drones remains largely unregulated.

Of particular import to this bill are both the practical safety considerations and the legal implications posed by drones and their users when occupying the same space as emergency response aircraft. To this end, news reports in the last year have focused on instances where drones have interfered with the ability of emergency responders to perform their jobs, such as firefighting. As noted in a CNN article last August:

Of all the elements they must battle in a wildfire, firefighters face a new foe: drones operated by enthusiasts who presumably take close-up video of the disaster.

Five such “unmanned aircraft systems” prevented California firefighters from dispatching helicopters with water buckets for up to 20 minutes over a wildfire that roared Friday onto a Los Angeles area freeway that leads to Las Vegas.

Helicopters couldn’t drop water because five drones hovered over the blaze, creating hazards in smoky winds for a deadly midair disaster, officials said. (Martinez, Vercammen & Brumfield, Above spectacular wildfire on freeway rises new scourge: drones, CNN (Jul. 19, 2015) <http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/18/us/california-freeway-fire/ [as of Mar. 15, 2016].)

Further, in a joint oversight hearing conducted by the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Joint Legislative Committee on Emergency Management on August 18, 2015, the chief of the state Department of Forestry and Fire Protection testified as to the impact of drones on firefighting efforts. As reported by the Los Angeles Times, a DC-10 air tanker returning to base after fighting the Rocky fire in Northern California came within 50 feet of a drone.  The chief of the state Department of Forestry and Fire Protection commented that the irresponsible use of drones places their crews and pilots in immediate danger. (McGreevy, Private drones are putting firefighters in ‘immediate danger,’ California fire official says, Los Angeles Times (Aug. 18, 2015) <http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-fire-officials-warn-lawmakers-about-threat-of-drones-to-firefighting-aircraft-20150818-story.html [as of Mar. 15, 2016].) 

Consequently, last year, SB 168 (Gaines and Jackson, 2015) would have made it unlawful to operate an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system in a knowing, intentional, or reckless manner that prevents or delays the extinguishment of a fire. Additionally, similar to this bill, SB 168 would have expressly provided emergency responders with immunity from civil liability for any damage to an unmanned aircraft system if that unmanned aircraft system interfered with emergency services, as specified. SB 168 was ultimately vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown due to concern that the bill criminalizes conduct that is already proscribed, thereby complicating matters without any commensurate benefit. Notably, this bill does not contain the Penal Code provisions of SB 168 that appear to have been of concern to the Governor.

This bill now provides emergency responders (including local public entities, public employees of local public entities, as well as specified private entities, and paid and unpaid volunteers) with immunity from civil liability for any damage to an unmanned aircraft system, if the damage was caused while the local public entity, public employee of a local public entity, or other emergency responder was providing certain emergency services and the unmanned aircraft system interfered with, the operation, support, or enabling of those emergency services.

Comments

As stated by the author:

Throughout last year’s drought-heightened fire season, private- unauthorized drones repeatedly halted firefighting efforts. The simple presence of these drones forced firefighters to ground mission-critical tanker aircraft, unnecessarily putting pilots, firefighters, civilians and property at risk. Additionally, these rogue drones have interfered with other lifesaving missions, such as air ambulance services.

Senate Bill 807 will help ensure that emergency responders can do their job of protecting the public without worrying about frivolous lawsuits. As drones become more accessible to the public, their presence in the sky is quickly increasing. It is essential that lifesaving services provided by emergency responders be free to continue despite someone’s misplaced desire to capture images for YouTube and the like.

[Specifically, c]urrent law does not provide explicit immunity for emergency responders who damage a drone that is interfering with the emergency services. This bill will clearly state that there is civil immunity in these situations. Impeding one tanker drop could be the difference between life and death of an individual or the loss of an entire neighborhood in flames. Senate Bill 807 is a critical piece of legislation to keep rogue drones from interfering with the most effective response to time-sensitive crises.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/22/16)

California Police Chiefs Association (co-source)

League of California Cities (co-source)

Association of California Water Agencies

Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs

California Ambulance Association

California Association of Code Enforcement Officers  

California College and University Police Chiefs Association

California Fire Chiefs Association

California Forestry Association

California Narcotic Officers Association

California Professional Firefighters

California Special Districts Association

California State Association of Counties

California State Sheriffs’ Association

California Statewide Law Enforcement Association

City of Burbank

City of Fountain Valley

City of Ontario

City of Thousand Oaks

Civil Justice Association of California

County of San Bernardino

CSAC Excess Insurance Authority

DJI Technology

East Bay Regional Park District

Fire Districts Association of California

LIUNA Local 792

Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association

Los Angeles Police Protective League

Orange County Professional Firefighters Association, Local 3631

Riverside Sheriffs Association

Ventura Council of Governments

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/22/16)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 8/22/16

AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Arambula, Atkins, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Melendez

Prepared by:

8/22/16 22:49:36

**** END ****

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 807

Author:(Gaines)

As Amended Ver:August 18, 2016

Majority vote

SENATE VOTE: 37-0

SUMMARY: Grants civil immunity to local public entities, public employees, and unpaid volunteers and private entities acting within the scope of delegated authority granted by a local public entity that damage an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) in the course of providing emergency services. Specifically, this bill:

1. Specifies that a local emergency responder is not liable for damage to a UAS if the damage was caused while the emergency responder was providing, and the UAS was interfering with, the operation, support, or enabling of any of the following emergency services:
   1. Emergency medical services or ambulance transport services, including, but not limited to, air ambulance services;
   2. Firefighting or firefighting-related services, including, but not limited to, air services related to firefighting or firefighting-related services; and
   3. Search and rescue services, including, but not limited to, air search and rescue services.
2. Specifies that the term "emergency responder" includes paid or unpaid volunteers and private entities if they are acting within the scope of authority implicitly or expressly provided by a local public entity or a public employee of a local public entity to provide emergency services.
3. Specifies that a local public entity or public employee of a local public entity is not liable for any damage to a UAS if the damage was caused while the local public entity or public employee of a local public entity was providing, and the UAS was interfering with, the operation, support, or enabling of any of the above listed emergency services.
4. Clarifies that the immunity provided by this bill is in addition to any other immunity provided to a local public entity or public employee of a local public entity under law.
5. Defines the terms "unmanned aircraft" and "unmanned aircraft system" consistent with federal law.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, negligible fiscal impact.

COMMENTS: This bill is intended to prevent civilian UAS from interfering with local firefighting and other local emergency response activities by granting immunity from lawsuits to local public entities, public employees of local public entities, and unpaid volunteers and private entities acting within the scope of delegated authority of a local public entity who damage a drone in the line of duty (such as conducting firefighting, air ambulance, and search-and-rescue operations). This bill is sponsored by the League of California Cities and the California Police Chiefs Association.

This bill would provide immunity from civil liability for damage caused to UAS that interfere with local emergency services more broadly, including ambulance services, services related to firefighting, and search and rescue operations – whether air, land or water-based – and whether public or private sector emergency responders are involved. The bill applies to forms of local emergency response beyond firefighting, including ambulance services and search and rescue services and defines "emergency responder" to include not just local public entities and public employees of local public entities, but also unpaid volunteers and private entities who are acting within the scope of authority implicitly or expressly provided by a local public entity or public employee of a local public entity to respond to an emergency situation.

In 2015, the Legislature approved a bill containing immunity provisions for both state and local public entities, SB 168 (Gaines), which received unanimous approval from the Legislature, but Governor Brown vetoed it along with several other bills that created new crimes. Governor Brown's veto message reads as follows:

Each of these bills creates a new crime - usually by finding a novel way to characterize and criminalize conduct that is already proscribed. This multiplication and particularization of criminal behavior creates increasing complexity without commensurate benefit. Over the last several decades, California's criminal code has grown to more than 5,000 separate provisions, covering almost every conceivable form of human misbehavior. During the same period, our jail and prison populations have exploded. Before we keep going down this road, I think we should pause and reflect on how our system of criminal justice could be made more human, more just and more cost-effective.

The criminal penalty provisions that were contained in last year's SB 168 are not included in this bill.

Analysis Prepared by: Jennie Bretschneider / P. & C.P. / (916) 319-2200 FN: 0004349

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 807

Author:(Gaines)

As Amended Ver:June 21, 2016

Majority vote

SENATE VOTE: 37-0

SUMMARY: Grants civil immunity to public entities, public employees, and unpaid volunteers and private entities acting within the scope of delegated authority that damage an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) in the course of providing emergency services. Specifically, this bill:

1. Specifies that an emergency responder is not liable for damage to a UAS if the damage was caused while the emergency responder was providing, and the UAS was interfering with, the operation, support, or enabling of any of the following emergency services:
   1. Emergency medical services or ambulance transport services, including, but not limited to, air ambulance services;
   2. Firefighting or firefighting-related services, including, but not limited to, air services related to firefighting or firefighting-related services; and
   3. Search and rescue services, including, but not limited to, air search and rescue services.
2. Specifies that the term "emergency responder" includes paid or unpaid volunteers and private entities if they are acting within the scope of authority implicitly or expressly provided by a public entity or a public employee to provide emergency services.
3. Specifies that a public entity or public employee is not liable for any damage to a UAS if the damage was caused while the public entity or public employee was providing, and the UAS was interfering with, the operation, support, or enabling of any of the above listed emergency services.
4. Clarifies that the immunity provided by this bill is in addition to any other immunity provided to a public entity or public employee under law.
5. Defines the terms "unmanned aircraft" and "unmanned aircraft system" consistent with federal law.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, negligible fiscal impact.

COMMENTS: This bill is intended to prevent civilian UAS from interfering with firefighting and other emergency response activities by granting immunity from lawsuits to public entities, public employees, and unpaid volunteers and private entities acting within the scope of delegated authority who damage a drone in the line of duty (such as conducting firefighting, air ambulance, and search-and-rescue operations). This bill is sponsored by the League of California Cities and the California Police Chiefs Association.

This bill would provide immunity from civil liability for damage caused to UAS that interfere with emergency services more broadly, including ambulance services, services related to firefighting, and search and rescue operations – whether air, land or water-based – and whether public or private sector emergency responders are involved.

The bill applies to forms of emergency response beyond firefighting, including ambulance services and search and rescue services and defines "emergency responder" to include not just public entities and public employees, but also unpaid volunteers and private entities who are acting within the scope of authority implicitly or expressly provided by a public entity or public employee to respond to an emergency situation.

In 2015, an approved bill containing similar immunity provisions, SB 168 (Gaines), received unanimous approval from the Legislature, but Governor Brown vetoed it along with several other bills that created new crimes. Governor Brown's veto message reads as follows:

"Each of these bills creates a new crime - usually by finding a novel way to characterize and criminalize conduct that is already proscribed. This multiplication and particularization of criminal behavior creates increasing complexity without commensurate benefit.

"Over the last several decades, California's criminal code has grown to more than 5,000 separate provisions, covering almost every conceivable form of human misbehavior. During the same period, our jail and prison populations have exploded.

"Before we keep going down this road, I think we should pause and reflect on how our system of criminal justice could be made more human, more just and more cost-effective."

The criminal penalty provisions that were contained in last year's vetoed bill, SB 168, are not included in this bill.

Analysis Prepared by: Jennie Bretschneider / P. & C.P. / (916) 319-2200 FN: 0003935

Date of Hearing: August 3, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 807

Author:(Gaines) – As Amended Ver:June 21, 2016

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill provides that a public entity, public employee, or an emergency responder, as defined, is not liable for damage to a unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV, or "drone") if the damage was caused while any of these parties was providing, and the UAV was interfering with, the operation, support, or enabling of any of the following emergency services:

1. Emergency medical services or ambulance transport services, including, but not limited to, air ambulance services;
2. Firefighting or firefighting-related services, including, but not limited to, air services related to firefighting or firefighting-related services; and
3. Search and rescue services, including, but not limited to, air search and rescue services.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Negligible fiscal impact.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. The bill is in response to recent reports of unauthorized drones interfering with the efforts of firefighting aircraft. According to the author, this bill would allow emergency responders to damage or destroy a drone that is interfering with their work without fear of being sued by the drone's owner for any damage done to the drone. It is unclear whether emergency responders have ever found it necessary to destroy a drone that was interfering with their work or, if they have, if any person has sued an emergency responder for damaging that drone. Nonetheless, the author maintains that emergency responders are unsure as to what they may or may not do in such a situation, and that this bill would allow them to "do their job of protecting the public without worrying about frivolous lawsuits." This bill is co-sponsored by the California Police Chiefs Association and the League of California Cities. There is no known opposition.
2. Prior Legislation. The immunity provisions in this bill are substantially similar to those provided in last year's SB 168 (Gaines and Jackson), which was vetoed by the Governor along with several other bills that created new crimes. The criminal penalties contained in SB 168 are not included in this bill.

Analysis Prepared by: Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: June 28, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Mark Stone, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 807

Author:(Gaines) – As Amended Ver:June 21, 2016

PROPOSED CONSENT

SENATE VOTE: 37-0

SUBJECT: Unmanned aircraft systems

KEY ISSUE: Should Emergency responders be immune from civil liability for damages that they might cause to a drone that is interfering with an emergency response?

SYNOPSIS

This bill would provide express immunity to emergency responders who damage or destroy an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV or "drone") that is interfering with the responders' efforts to render emergency services. The bill was introduced in response to recent reports of unauthorized drones interfering with the efforts of firefighting aircraft. According to the author and sponsor, this bill would allow emergency responders to damage or destroy a drone that is interfering with their work without fear of being sued by the drone's owner for any damage done to the drone. It is unclear whether emergency responders have ever found it necessary to destroy a drone that was interfering with their work or, if they have, if any person has sued an emergency responder for damaging that drone. Nonetheless, the author and sponsor maintain that emergency responders are unsure as to what they may or may not do in such a situation, and that this bill would allow them to "do their job of protecting the public without worrying about frivolous lawsuits."

The bill creates immunity for both public and private responders, insofar as the latter are acting within the authority granted by a public entity or public employee. Arguably, public entities are already immune from liability under the Government Tort Claims Act for any damages caused when acting within the scope of their authority; indeed, firefighters are already expressly exempted from liability for any injury that they cause when fighting fires. This bill would provide express immunity to other emergency responders (medical and search and rescue) if they destroy a meddling drone. More novel, this bill would extend immunity from liability to private entities acting under the authority of a public entity, a reasonable recognition that emergency services are sometimes contracted out to private entities. The bill is supported by local governments, law enforcement groups, and associations representing emergency response personnel. There is no opposition to this measure.

SUMMARY: Grants civil immunity to public entities, public employees, and unpaid volunteers and private entities acting within the scope of delegated authority that damage an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) in the course of providing emergency services. Specifically, this bill:

1. Specifies that an emergency responder is not liable for damage to a UAV if the damage was caused while the emergency responder was providing, and the UAV was interfering with, the operation, support, or enabling of any of the following emergency services:
   1. Emergency medical services or ambulance transport services, including, but not limited to, air ambulance services;
   2. Firefighting or firefighting-related services, including, but not limited to, air services related to firefighting or firefighting-related services; and
   3. Search and rescue services, including, but not limited to, air search and rescue services.
2. Defines the term “emergency responder” for purposes of the civil immunity to mean either of the following, if acting within the scope of authority implicitly or expressly provided by a public entity or a public employee to provide emergency services:
   1. A paid or unpaid volunteer; or
   2. A private entity.
3. Specifies that a public entity or public employee is not liable for any damage to a UAV if the damage was caused while the public entity or public employee was providing, and the UAV was interfering with, the operation or support of any of the following emergency services:
   1. Emergency medical services or ambulance transport services, including, but not limited to, air ambulance services;
   2. Firefighting or firefighting-related services, including, but not limited to, air services related to firefighting or firefighting-related services; and
   3. Search and rescue services, including, but not limited to, air search and rescue services.
4. Specifies that the immunity granted to a public entity or public employee is in addition to any other immunity provided to a public entity or public employee under law.
5. Defines the term “unmanned aircraft” to mean an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft.
6. Defines the term “unmanned aircraft system” to mean an unmanned aircraft and all of the associated elements, including, but not limited to, communication links and the components that control the unmanned aircraft that are required for the pilot in command to operate safely and efficiently in the national airspace system.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Generally exempts a public agency, or public employee acting in the scope of his employment, from liability for injury resulting from the condition of fire protection or firefighting equipment or facilities, and for any injury caused in fighting fires. (Government Code Section 850.4.)
2. Defines a “public entity” to include the state, the Regents of the University of California, the Trustees of the California State University and the California State University, a county, city, district, public authority, public agency, and any other political subdivision or public corporation in the State, and makes all public entities, state and local, liable in tort to the extent declared by statute, subject to stated immunities and defenses. (Government Code Section 811.2 and 815 et seq.)
3. Defines a “public employee” as an employee of a public entity and makes public employees liable to the same extent as private persons, subject to various immunities and defenses. (Government Code Sections 811.4 and 820 et seq.)
4. Makes it a misdemeanor to go to the scene of an emergency or stop at the scene of an emergency to watch the scene or the activities of first responders or military personnel if doing so impedes their efforts, unless it is part of the duties of the person’s employment to view the scene or activities. (Penal Code Section 402 (a).)
5. Requires, under the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, the FAA to integrate UAV into the national airspace system by September 30, 2015, and to develop and implement certification requirements for the operation of UAV in the national airspace system by December 31, 2015. (Public Law Number 112-095.)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS: This bill is one of several that this Committee has heard in recent years addressing the anticipated consequences of the proliferation of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), or as they are more commonly known, "drones." While almost everyone agrees on the potential public and commercial benefits of drones, most also recognize that unrestricted drone use creates potential risks to public safety and personal privacy. Much of the ambiguity surrounding state legislative efforts to regulate drones – whether to protect privacy or public safety – stems from the fact that federal policy is still evolving. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates all national airspace from the ground up, and as such drones occupy the national airspace according to rules set forth by the FAA. (There is a common misperception that the FAA does not regulate recreational drone use below 400 feet. This is not, in fact, the case. Several years ago the FAA did indeed authorize recreational use of drones below 400 feet, so long as the person flying the drone stayed clear of certain restricted spaces, did not fly the drone recklessly, and kept the drone within sight. But in doing so it did not concede its power to regulate the national airspace from the ground up.)

Until recently, the FAA permitted recreational drone use but restricted the commercial use of drones to a handful of entities using drones for largely experimental purposes. As the technology evolved, and as the many commercial uses of drones became apparent, the FAA came under increasing pressure to permit commercial uses. These pressures eventually led to passage of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, which required the FAA to develop rules and regulations that would allow the integration of "unmanned aerial systems" (UAS) into the national airspace by September, 2015. As this analysis was being prepared, the FAA finally issued its long-awaited rules on commercial drone use, although these rules appear to stop short of what many businesses had wanted – for example package-delivery plans by businesses like Amazon are still not authorized under the new rules, although they will possibly be added at some future point. (See "FAA Issue Commercial Drone Rules," New York Times, June 21, 2016.)

Private and Commercial Drone Use and Public Safety: One of the uses often touted by advocates of a more permissive set of FAA rules involved the potential benefits of drones to firefighters and emergency responders. Drones, it was maintained, could be used to track the progress and development of fires or conduct search and rescue operations without putting human pilots and crews at risk. Ironically, it is precisely in these kinds of situations that drones can also create a potential risk to firefighters and emergency responders. As noted in the author's background material, the primary impetus for this bill grew from reports of private drone operators attempting to gather images of a wildfire and thereby interfering with the work of firefighting aircraft, which must necessarily fly at relatively low altitudes. To note the most cited example, in 2015 –as the drought made the fire season more dangerous than ever – several private (presumably recreational) drone operators disrupted firefighting efforts near Cajon Pass. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire), the firefighters were forced to ground their aircraft for about thirty minutes, fearing possible danger to firefighting crews in the event of a collision or of drones being drawn into the aircraft's engines, thus causing the aircraft to stall and possibly crash, causing further damage to persons or property on the ground. Cal Fire reasoned that during the time those firefighters were grounded, the fire spread and became more difficult to control. Drones also reportedly interfered with firefighters battling blazes in Placer County, Yucaipa, and Barton Flats during the 2015 fire season. According to the sponsors, the U.S. Forest Service reported 13 instances where drones interfered, to one degree or another, with firefighting aircraft.

Existing Immunity for Emergency Responders: According to the author and sponsor, as drone use becomes more widespread and open to both recreational and commercial uses, the possibilities of disastrous drone interference with the work of airborne emergency responders will become greater. As such, the author believes, if emergency responders must intentionally destroy a drone that is interfering with their efforts, they should not fear the prospect that they could be sued for doing so by the owner for the damage done. Just how likely such a lawsuit would result is highly uncertain. Although some supporters of this bill have communicated to the Committee that such suits have been filed, the Committee could not find evidence that any emergency responders have intentionally destroyed a drone, much less that anyone has sued responders for doing so. (This is not to say that such lawsuits have not been filed, but only that the Committee has not found or been provided with evidence of any such suit.) To the extent that such a lawsuit has or could be filed, it should be noted that existing law arguably protects responders from liability. To begin with, as for public emergency responders, the Government Tort Claims Act (Government Code Section 810 et seq.), which codifies the common law principle of sovereign immunity, immunizes public entities from liability unless a statute expressly creates liability. Public employees are similarly immune from liability so long as they are acting within the scope of their employment and authority. More to the point, Government Code Section 850.4 expressly exempts a public agency, or a public employee acting within the scope of her employment, from liability for injury resulting from the condition of fire protection or firefighting equipment, "and for any injury caused in fighting fires."

In addition to the general civil immunities provided to public agencies and public employees, Penal Code Section 402 (a) makes it crime to go to the scene of an emergency to watch the scene if doing so impedes the efforts of first responders, unless it is part of the duty of the person's employment (e.g. a news reporter) to view the scene or activities. While this section does not grant emergency responders any immunity from liability, it seems unlikely that a court would find the emergency responders liable if the plaintiff's injury occurred while committing an unlawful act. At the very least, the unlawful act would constitute contributory negligence. Finally, even in the case of a private entity, an emergency responder that destroyed or damaged a drone would only be liable if the responder acted unreasonably under the circumstances. In the context of a life-or-death emergency, where a drone is preventing the responder from carrying out a duty to respond to that emergency, it is difficult to imagine that any court would find that an emergency responder was unreasonable in damaging, even intentionally, a drone that was impeding emergency response efforts – especially given that if the drone was in fact impeding those efforts, its operator was, by definition, committing a misdemeanor.

Does this bill address the potential public safety problems presented by unrestricted drone use? While drone interference with emergency responders is clearly a problem, as recent reports on firefighting attest, it is less clear that the most pressing part of the problem is the lack of immunity for emergency responders. It should be noted, for example, that, based on the news reports examined by the Committee, Cal Fire did not ground its firefighters out of any fear of liability; it grounded its firefighters out of fear for the safety of the firefighters and innocent persons on the ground in the event of a collision. Supporters of this legislation have subsequently raised the prospect that emergency responders were immobilized by fears of liability, but reports and stories covering these events at the time did not indicate that fear of liability was the reason for grounding the aircraft.

Nevertheless, despite the lack of evidence that any lawsuit has been filed against emergency responders for destroying a drone that was interfering with an emergency response, and despite the broad general immunities that existing law already affords to government entities, the author and sponsor do make a case that a drone operator could conceivably bring a lawsuit against a public or private emergency responder if it became necessary for the emergency responders to destroy or damage the drone. Existing government immunity, after all, does not apply to the private emergency responders that act under the authority of a public entity. And the broad immunity afforded to public entities by the Government Tort Claims Act may have been unintentionally weakened by the express provision in Government Code Section 850.4 that creates immunity for firefighters; for by singling out firefighters that provision creates an unintended assumption that other emergency responders may not enjoy such immunity, otherwise the Legislature would have mentioned them. In sum, to the extent that even the remote possibility of a lawsuit might cause emergency responders to hesitate if it became necessary to destroy a drone in order to protect public safety, then perhaps there is a case to be made for providing express immunity in the very limited way that this bill does.

This bill would provide immunity to public emergency responders, as well as to private emergency responders acting under the authority of a public entity or public employee. The bill's proposed new Civil Code section would provide immunity to any "emergency responder" for any damage to a drone, if that damage was caused while the emergency responder was providing emergency services and the drone was impeding those services. This section of the bill defines "emergency responders" to include a private entity, whether using paid employees or unpaid volunteers, providing emergency services while acting within the scope of authority provided by a public entity or public employee. The second section of the bill adds a new section to the Government Code that grants immunity to a public entity or public employee that damages a drone while providing emergency services. This section defines "emergency services" so that the term only applies to emergency medical and ambulance transport services, firefighting services, and search and rescue services. The added Civil Code section granting immunity to private responders adopts, by reference, this same limited definition of "emergency services." It is not entirely clear why the author has chosen to restrict the definition of "emergency services" to only those enumerated in the bill. Elsewhere in existing law, an "emergency" is defined more broadly than medical emergencies, fires, and search and rescue. For example, Penal Code Section 402 – which makes it a misdemeanor to interfere with first responders – defines an emergency as any condition or situation involving injury to persons, damage to property, or peril to the safety of persons or property, which results from a fire, explosion, airplane crash, flooding, windstorm damage, rail accident, traffic accident, power plant accident, toxic chemical or biological spill, or any other natural or human-caused event.

Governor’s Veto of SB 168: The immunity provisions in this bill are substantially similar to those provided in last year's SB 168 (Gaines and Jackson). Despite receiving unanimous approval from the Legislature, SB 168 was vetoed by Governor Brown along with several other bills that created new crimes. Governor Brown’s veto message stated:

Each of these bills creates a new crime - usually by finding a novel way to characterize and criminalize conduct that is already proscribed. This multiplication and particularization of criminal behavior creates increasing complexity without commensurate benefit . . . Over the last several decades, California's criminal code has grown to more than 5,000 separate provisions, covering almost every conceivable form of human misbehavior. During the same period, our jail and prison populations have exploded . . . Before we keep going down this road, I think we should pause and reflect on how our system of criminal justice could be made more human, more just and more cost-effective.

The author notes that the criminal penalties contained in SB 168, which were clearly the primary reason for the veto, are not included in this bill.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the bill’s sponsors, the California Police Chiefs Association and the League of California Cities, “Privately operated drones pose a serious threat to our state’s first responders battling wildfires, transporting critically ill individuals and searching for missing persons…[I]n Fresno we witnessed a civilian’s drone nearly collide with an air ambulance. At the Cajon Pass, we witnessed a tragedy as dozens of cars combusted. The cause? A civilian drone forced firefighting operations to land, allowing for the fire to grow and jump the freeway. The U.S. Forest Services has tallied thirteen wildfires in which suspected drones interfered with firefighting aircraft last year. In fact, this increasingly frequent hazard is causing local jurisdiction to offer rewards ranging from $25,000 to $75,000 for information on interrupting drone-operators. The distractions, delays, and heightened threat to public safety caused by the irresponsible use of civilian drones pose an unacceptable and growing risk for both our first responders and members of the public. SB 807 will allow first responders to continue their operations and keep Californians safe.”

According to the Civil Justice Association of California, this bill “protects emergency responders whether paid or unpaid, private or public employees, performing a list of emergency services including firefighting, search and rescue, ambulance and air ambulance. These essential roles are inherently dangerous. We should not add to the risks associated with these roles by exposing the people who fill them to lawsuits over damage to drones interfering with emergency response.”

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Police Chiefs Association (co-sponsor)

League of California Cities (co-sponsor)

Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs

California Ambulance Association

California Association of Code Enforcement Officers

California College and University Police Chiefs Association

California Fire Chiefs Association

California Forestry Association

California Justice Association of California

California Narcotic Officers Association

California Professional Firefighters

California Special Districts Association

California State Association of Counties

California State Sheriffs’ Association

California Statewide Law Enforcement Association

City of Ontario

City of Thousand Oaks

Civil Justice Association of California

CSAC Excess Insurance Authority

DJI Technology

Fire Districts Association of California

LIUNA Local 792

Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association

Los Angeles Police Protective League

Orange County Board of Supervisors

Orange County Professional Firefighters Association, Local 3631

Riverside Sheriffs Association

San Bernardino County

Ventura Council of Governments

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Thomas Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334

Date of Hearing: June 14, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

Ed Chau, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 807

Author:(Gaines) – As Amended Ver:May 27, 2016

SENATE VOTE: 37-0

SUBJECT: Unmanned aircraft systems

SUMMARY: Grants civil immunity to public entities, public employees, and unpaid volunteers and private entities acting within the scope of delegated authority that damage an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) in the course of providing emergency services. Specifically, this bill:

1. Specifies that an emergency responder is not liable for damage to a UAS if the damage was caused while the emergency responder was providing, and the UAS was interfering with, the operation, support, or enabling of any of the following emergency services:
   1. Emergency medical services or ambulance transport services, including, but not limited to, air ambulance services;
   2. Firefighting or firefighting-related services, including, but not limited to, air services related to firefighting or firefighting-related services; and
   3. Search and rescue services, including, but not limited to, air search and rescue services.
2. Defines the term “emergency responder” for purposes of the civil immunity to mean either of the following, if acting within the scope of authority implicitly or expressly provided by a public entity or a public employee to provide emergency services:
   1. A paid or unpaid volunteer; or
   2. A private entity.
3. Specifies that a public entity or public employee is not liable for any damage to a UAS if the damage was caused while the public entity or public employee was providing, and the UAS was interfering with, the operation, support, or enabling of any of the following emergency services:
   1. Emergency medical services or ambulance transport services, including, but not limited to, air ambulance services;
   2. Firefighting or firefighting-related services, including, but not limited to, air services related to firefighting or firefighting-related services; and
   3. Search and rescue services, including, but not limited to, air search and rescue services.
4. Defines the term “unmanned aircraft” to mean an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft.
5. Defines the term “unmanned aircraft system” to mean an unmanned aircraft and all of the associated elements, including, but not limited to, communication links and the components that control the unmanned aircraft that are required for the pilot in command to operate safely and efficiently in the national airspace system.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Generally exempts a public agency, or public employee acting in the scope of his employment, from liability for injury resulting from the condition of fire protection or firefighting equipment or facilities, and for any injury caused fighting fires. (Government Code Section (GC) 850.4)
2. Establishes, under the Government Tort Claims Act (Act), rules of civil liability that apply to public entities and public employees in California. (GC 810, et seq.)
3. Defines a “public entity” to include the state, the Regents of the University of California, the Trustees of the California State University and the California State University, a county, city, district, public authority, public agency, and any other political subdivision or public corporation in the State, and makes all public entities, state and local, liable in tort to the extent declared by statute, subject to stated immunities and defenses. (GC 811.2 and 815, et seq.)
4. Defines a “public employee” as an employee of a public entity and makes public employees liable to the same extent as private persons, subject to various immunities and defenses. (GC 811.4 and 820, et seq.)
5. Makes it a misdemeanor to go to the scene of an emergency or stop at the scene of an emergency to watch the scene or the activities of first responders or military personnel if doing so impedes their efforts, unless it is part of the duties of the person’s employment to view the scene or activities. (Penal Code (PC) 402(a))
6. Defines an “emergency” as a condition or situation involving injury to persons, damage to property, or peril to the safety of persons or property, which results from a fire, explosion, airplane crash, flooding, windstorm damage, rail accident, traffic accident, power plant accident, toxic chemical or biological spill, or any other natural or human-caused event. (PC 402(c))
7. Requires, under the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, the FAA to integrate UAS into the national airspace system by September 30, 2015, and to develop and implement certification requirements for the operation of UAS in the national airspace system by December 31, 2015. (Public Law Number 112-095)

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, any additional state costs are not significant, and do not and will not require the appropriation of additional state funds, and the bill will cause no significant reduction in revenues.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose of this bill. This bill is intended to prevent civilian UAS from interfering with firefighting and other emergency response activities by granting immunity from lawsuits to public entities, public employees, and unpaid volunteers and private entities acting within the scope of delegated authority who damage a drone in the line of duty (such as conducting firefighting, air ambulance, and search-and-rescue operations). This bill is sponsored by the League of California Cities and the California Police Chiefs Association.
2. Author's statement. According to the author: "Early in the course of last year’s drought-heightened fire season, private unauthorized drones repeatedly halted firefighting efforts. The simple presence of these drones forced firefighters to ground mission-critical tanker aircraft, unnecessarily putting pilots, firefighters, civilians and property at risk. Disruption by drones at all fires-wildfire or otherwise-can have grave consequences. Additionally, these rogue drones have interfered with other lifesaving missions, such as air ambulance services. This bill will help ensure that emergency responders can do the job of protecting the public without worrying about frivolous lawsuits."

"As drones become more accessible to the public, their presence in the sky is quickly increasing. It is essential that lifesaving services provided by emergency responders be free to continue despite someone’s misplaced desire to capture images for YouTube and the like. It is the author’s hope and intent that the advent of effective 'jamming' technology could keep drones away from emergency response areas and flight paths, and that warnings and public education efforts could ensure that the safest, least-damaging methods for avoiding or disabling unauthorized drones will be the primary methods used in these crises. This bill is a critical piece of legislation to keep rogue drones from interfering with the most effective response to time-sensitive crises."

1. Growth in commercial and recreational uses of UAS. UAS are widely available to the public for recreational use. Retail UAS devices outfitted with cameras now range from roughly $300 to $1,500. A July 2015 report by the Consumer Electronics Association estimates that hobbyists in the United States will buy 700,000 drones in 2015 alone.

Commercial applications for UAS are being rapidly developed. UAS can give the news media economical and environmentally-friendly access to aerial views of traffic, storms, and other events when compared to the current use of helicopters and other manned aircraft. UAS can be used in the agricultural industry to observe and measure crops while conserving resources and avoiding the use of heavy equipment. And UAS may be the future delivery system for mail-order and Internet companies.

1. FAA regulation of UAS. In 2012, Congress passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Act). The Act required the FAA to establish a framework for safely integrating UAS into the national airspace, and authorized the FAA establish interim requirements for the commercial operation of UAS. While the FAA is not expected to finish its final rulemaking for another year or two, the FAA’s interim rules require entities that wish to conduct commercial, governmental, research or educational UAS operations to meet certain standards and apply for a Certificate of Authorization to operate.

In 2015, the FAA issued rules requiring any UAS weighing between half a pound and 55 pounds to be registered with the FAA by February 19, 2016. The new FAA registration rules apply only to “model aircraft,” i.e., recreational UAS. Upon registration, the FAA issues a unique identifier, which must be affixed to the UAS in a “readily accessible and visible manner.” The unique identifier can then be used to look up the UAS owner in the event of a problem or accident.

1. Recent drone incidents near wildfires. During last year’s fire season, several hobby UAS operators disrupted firefighting efforts during the initial stage of the North Fire near Cajon Pass. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire), as the fire burned toward Interstate 15, which links Southern California to Las Vegas, fire officials were forced to ground firefighting aircraft after drones were sighted nearby – hampering efforts that could otherwise have held back the blaze that ultimately destroyed 20 vehicles and forced motorists to flee on foot from oncoming flames.
   
   The North Fire was just one of many incidents in 2015 in which hobby drones have caused disruptions in the suppression of California's major wildfires. On July 22, 2015, a drone grounded Cal Fire air support crews that were fighting a grassfire near Auburn in Placer County. Drone operators also interfered with emergency crews at the Mill 2 Fire in Yucaipa on July 12, 2015, and the Lake Fire near Barton Flats on June 17, 2015.

Aerial firefighting aircraft, such as air tankers and helicopters, must fly at very low altitudes in order to be effective. Hobbyists who fly UAS near fires create the potential for a mid-air collision that could injure or kill aerial and ground firefighters as well as innocent bystanders on the ground below. Because of this risk, when firefighters detect a UAS flying over or near a wildfire, air operations must be suspended until all drones flying in a fire area are removed. This delay allows wildfires to grow, and in some cases like the North Fire, such a delay can pose an immediate threat to human lives and property.

1. Civil immunity for damage to drones that interfere with emergency services. This bill would provide immunity from civil liability for damage caused to UAS that interfere with emergency services more broadly, including ambulance services, services related to firefighting, and search and rescue operations – whether air, land or water-based – and whether public or private sector emergency responders are involved.
   

Generally speaking, under the state Government Tort Claims Act, public entities and public employees already enjoy immunity from civil liability for injury caused fighting fires. This bill would expand immunity from civil liability to both public and private sector emergency responders for any damage to a UAS, if the damage was caused while the responder was providing, and the UAS was interfering with, emergency services. For example, if an emergency responder collided with a drone, or if a drone had to be purposely damaged or destroyed in order to conduct emergency operations, then the immunity in this bill would apply, but only for damage to the UAS itself and not any secondary effects.

Note that, for purposes of the civil immunity, the bill applies to forms of emergency response beyond firefighting, including ambulance services and search and rescue services.

This bill also defines “emergency responder” to include not just public entities and public employees, but also unpaid volunteers and private entities who are acting within the scope of authority implicitly or expressly provided by a public entity or public employee to respond to an emergency situation.

1. Consumer education and other UAS mitigation tools. Law enforcement agencies currently have a limited number of tools, such as consumer education, UAS communications jamming, and "geofencing" technology to help mitigate UAS interference in wildfires and other emergencies.

Cal Fire and other agencies have already begun an extensive public education campaign under the motto, “If You Fly, We Can’t!” to inform the public of the dangers of flying UAS near emergencies and to discourage hobbyists from flying UAS near wildfires. Cal Fire has also established a hotline (1-844-DRONE11) for reporting information about irresponsible UAS operators flying close to disasters and emergencies. Private sector smart phone applications, like Hover, can also help drone users avoid restricted areas.

In certain cases, law enforcement agencies can jam communication frequencies to stop drones from approaching danger zones. However, untargeted jamming technologies can also inadvertently interfere with first-responder and civilian communications, and could disable drones in use by legitimate first responders.

Earlier this year, this Committee approved AB 2724 (Gatto), which proposes requiring UAS to have so-called “geofencing” chips that could one day automatically prevent a UAS from flying into an area designated by authorities as a danger zone. However, many recreational drones in use today do not contain geofencing technology, and those that do can be disabled by drone operators.

This bill would ensure all manner of emergency responders would have immunity in the instance that a UAS must be taken down in a way that damages the UAS but that is necessary for emergency response services to proceed.

1. Governor’s veto of prior legislation. In 2015, this Committee unanimously approved SB 168 (Gaines and Jackson), which contained immunity provisions similar to this bill. While SB 168 received unanimous approval from the Legislature, Governor Brown vetoed it along with several other bills that created new crimes. Governor Brown’s veto message read as follows:
   

"Each of these bills creates a new crime - usually by finding a novel way to characterize and criminalize conduct that is already proscribed. This multiplication and particularization of criminal behavior creates increasing complexity without commensurate benefit.

"Over the last several decades, California's criminal code has grown to more than 5,000 separate provisions, covering almost every conceivable form of human misbehavior. During the same period, our jail and prison populations have exploded.

"Before we keep going down this road, I think we should pause and reflect on how our system of criminal justice could be made more human, more just and more cost-effective."

The criminal penalty provisions that were contained in SB 168 are not included in this bill.

1. Arguments in support. According to the bill’s sponsors, the California Police Chiefs Association and the League of California Cities, “Privately operated drones pose a serious threat to our state’s first responders battling wildfires, transporting critically ill individuals and searching for missing persons…[I]n Fresno we witnessed a civilian’s drone nearly collide with an air ambulance. At the Cajon Pass, we witnessed a tragedy as dozens of cars combusted. The cause? A civilian drone forced firefighting operations to land, allowing for the fire to grow and jump the freeway. The U.S. Forest Services has tallied thirteen wildfires in which suspected drones interfered with firefighting aircraft last year. In fact, this increasingly frequent hazard is causing local jurisdiction to offer rewards ranging from $25,000 to $75,000 for information on interrupting drone-operators. The distractions, delays, and heightened threat to public safety caused by the irresponsible use of civilian drones pose an unacceptable and growing risk for both our first responders and members of the public. SB 807 will allow first responders to continue their operations and keep Californians safe.”

According to the Civil Justice Association of California, this bill “protects emergency responders whether paid or unpaid, private or public employees, performing a list of emergency services including firefighting, search and rescue, ambulance and air ambulance. These essential roles are inherently dangerous. We should not add to the risks associated with these roles by exposing the people who fill them to lawsuits over damage to drones interfering with emergency response.”

1. Technical amendment. The author has agreed to accept the following technical amendment to the Government Code to clarify that this bill does not limit any other immunity in existing law that may apply to public entity or public employee:

On page 3, between lines 20 and 21, insert:

“853.1. The immunity provided by this chapter is in addition to any other immunity provided to a public entity or public employee under law.”

1. Related legislation. AB 1680 (Rodriguez) makes it a misdemeanor to operate a UAS in a way that interferes with first responders. AB 1680 is pending in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
   

AB 2320 (Calderon and Low) prohibits, among other things, operating a UAS in a way that interferes with emergency response in an emergency. AB 2320 is pending in the Senate Public Safety Committee.

AB 2724 (Gatto) requires UAS makers to include with the UAS a copy of FAA safety regulations, and if the UAS is required to be registered with the FAA, a notice of the registration requirement. That bill also requires UAS with GPS technology to be outfitted with a geo-fencing feature and requires UAS owners to have adequate liability insurance. AB 2724 is pending in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee.

1. Double-referral. This bill was double-referred to the Assembly Judiciary Committee, where it will be heard if passed by this Committee.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Police Chiefs Association (co-sponsor)

League of California Cities (co-sponsor)

Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs

California Ambulance Association

California Association of Code Enforcement Officers

California College and University Police Chiefs Association

California Fire Chiefs Association

California Forestry Association

California Justice Association of California

California Narcotic Officers Association

California Professional Firefighters

California Special Districts Association

California State Association of Counties

California State Sheriffs’ Association

California Statewide Law Enforcement Association

City of Ontario

City of Thousand Oaks

Civil Justice Association of California

CSAC Excess Insurance Authority

DJI Technology

Fire Districts Association of California

LIUNA Local 792

Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association

Los Angeles Police Protective League

Orange County Board of Supervisors

Orange County Professional Firefighters Association, Local 3631

Riverside Sheriffs Association

San Bernardino County

Ventura Council of Governments

Opposition

None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Jennie Bretschneider / P. & C.P. / (916) 319-2200

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 807

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 3/29/16

AYES: Jackson, Moorlach, Anderson, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning, Wieckowski

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: California Police Chiefs Association

League of California Cities

DIGEST: This bill seeks to provide public entities and public employees with immunity from civil liability for any damage to an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system, if the damage was caused while the public entity or public employee was providing, and the unmanned aircraft system was interfering with, the operation, support, or enabling of specified emergency services. This bill applies the same immunity protection for public entities and employees, above, to emergency responders who are private entities or paid or unpaid volunteers, if those emergency responders are acting within the scope of authority implicitly or expressly provided by a public entity or a public employee.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides, under the Civil Code, that besides the personal rights mentioned or recognized in the Government Code, every person has, subject to the qualifications and restrictions provided by law, the right of protection from bodily restraint or harm, from personal insult, from defamation, and from injury to his personal relations.
2. Provides that every person is bound, without contract, to abstain from injuring the person or property of another, or infringing upon any of his or her rights.
3. Provides that everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury to another caused by his or her lack of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or from lack of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself.
4. Specifies, under the Government Tort Claims Act (Act), rules of civil liability that apply to public entities and public employees in California. The Act generally provides that all public entities, state and local, are liable in tort to the extent declared by statute, subject to stated immunities and defenses. Public employees are liable to the same extent as private persons, subject to various immunities and defenses.
5. Defines a “public entity” to include the state, the Regents of the University of California, the Trustees of the California State University and the California State University, a county, city, district, public authority, public agency, and any other political subdivision or public corporation in the state. Defines a “public employee” to mean an employee of a public entity.
6. Governs the liability of public entities and public employees with regard to fire protection. Provides, generally, that neither a public agency nor public employee acting in the scope of his employment is liable for any injury resulting from the condition of fire protection or firefighting equipment or facilities, or for any injury caused fighting fires.

This bill:

1. Adds to the Act to provide that a public entity or public employee shall not be liable for any damage to an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system, if the damage was caused while the emergency responder was providing, and the unmanned aircraft system was interfering with, the operation, support, or enabling of any of the following emergency services:

• Ambulance services, including, but not limited to, air ambulance services;
• Firefighting or firefighting-related services, including, but not limited to, air services related to firefighting or firefighting-related services; or
• Search and rescue services, including, but not limited to, air search and rescue services.

1. Adds to the Civil Code that an emergency responder shall not be liable for any damage to an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system, if the damage was caused while the emergency responder was providing, and the unmanned aircraft system was interfering with, the operation, support, or enabling of any of the emergency services listed above.
2. Defines “emergency responder” for these purposes to include either of the following, if acting within the scope of authority implicitly or expressly provided by a public entity or a public employee, as specified, to provide emergency services:

• A paid or unpaid volunteer; or
• A private entity.

1. Defines:

• “Unmanned aircraft” to mean an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft.
• “Unmanned aircraft system” to mean an unmanned aircraft and associated elements, including, but not limited to, communication links and the components that control the unmanned aircraft that are required for the pilot in command to operate safely and efficiently in the national airspace system.

Background

As with most new technologies, the possibility of having potentially thousands of commercial and private unmanned aerial vehicles or “drones” take to California’s skies in the coming years has called into question how well state law is prepared to incorporate these vehicles – and the policy issues associated with their operation – into California’s legal landscape.  At present, the commercial use of drones in the skies over California is fairly restricted; however, the recreational or hobbyist use of drones remains largely unregulated.

Of particular import to this bill are both the practical safety considerations and the legal implications posed by drones and their users when occupying the same space as emergency response aircraft. To this end, news reports in the last year have focused on instances where drones have interfered with the ability of emergency responders to perform their jobs, such as firefighting. As noted in a CNN article last August:

Of all the elements they must battle in a wildfire, firefighters face a new foe: drones operated by enthusiasts who presumably take close-up video of the disaster.

Five such “unmanned aircraft systems” prevented California firefighters from dispatching helicopters with water buckets for up to 20 minutes over a wildfire that roared Friday onto a Los Angeles area freeway that leads to Las Vegas.

Helicopters couldn’t drop water because five drones hovered over the blaze, creating hazards in smoky winds for a deadly midair disaster, officials said. (Martinez, Vercammen & Brumfield, Above spectacular wildfire on freeway rises new scourge: drones, CNN (Jul. 19, 2015) <http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/18/us/california-freeway-fire/ [as of Mar. 15, 2016].)

Further, in a joint oversight hearing conducted by the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Joint Legislative Committee on Emergency Management on August 18, 2015, the chief of the state Department of Forestry and Fire Protection testified as to the impact of drones on firefighting efforts. As reported by the Los Angeles Times, a DC-10 air tanker returning to base after fighting the Rocky fire in Northern California came within 50 feet of a drone.  The chief of the state Department of Forestry and Fire Protection commented that the irresponsible use of drones places their crews and pilots in immediate danger. (McGreevy, Private drones are putting firefighters in ‘immediate danger,’ California fire official says, Los Angeles Times (Aug. 18, 2015) <http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-fire-officials-warn-lawmakers-about-threat-of-drones-to-firefighting-aircraft-20150818-story.html [as of Mar. 15, 2016].) 

Consequently, last year, SB 168 (Gaines and Jackson, 2015) would have made it unlawful to operate an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system in a knowing, intentional, or reckless manner that prevents or delays the extinguishment of a fire. Additionally, similar to this bill, SB 168 would have expressly provided emergency responders with immunity from civil liability for any damage to an unmanned aircraft system if that unmanned aircraft system interfered with emergency services, as specified. SB 168 was ultimately vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown due to concern that the bill criminalizes conduct that is already proscribed, thereby complicating matters without any commensurate benefit. Notably, this bill does not contain the Penal Code provisions of SB 168 that appear to have been of concern to the Governor.

This bill now provides emergency responders (including public entities, public employees, as well as specified private entities, and paid and unpaid volunteers) with immunity from civil liability for any damage to an unmanned aircraft system, if the damage was caused while the public entity, public employee, or other emergency responder was providing certain emergency services and the unmanned aircraft system interfered with, the operation, support, or enabling of those emergency services.

Comments

As stated by the author:

Throughout last year’s drought-heightened fire season, private- unauthorized drones repeatedly halted firefighting efforts. The simple presence of these drones forced firefighters to ground mission-critical tanker aircraft, unnecessarily putting pilots, firefighters, civilians and property at risk. Additionally, these rogue drones have interfered with other lifesaving missions, such as air ambulance services.

Senate Bill 807 will help ensure that emergency responders can do their job of protecting the public without worrying about frivolous lawsuits. As drones become more accessible to the public, their presence in the sky is quickly increasing. It is essential that lifesaving services provided by emergency responders be free to continue despite someone’s misplaced desire to capture images for YouTube and the like.

[Specifically, c]urrent law does not provide explicit immunity for emergency responders who damage a drone that is interfering with the emergency services. This bill will clearly state that there is civil immunity in these situations. Impeding one tanker drop could be the difference between life and death of an individual or the loss of an entire neighborhood in flames. Senate Bill 807 is a critical piece of legislation to keep rogue drones from interfering with the most effective response to time-sensitive crises.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

SUPPORT: (Verified 4/13/16)

California Police Chiefs Association (co-source)

League of California Cities (co-source)

Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs

California Ambulance Association

California Association of Code Enforcement Officers  

California College and University Police Chiefs Association

California Fire Chiefs Association

California Narcotic Officers Association

California Professional Firefighters

California Special Districts Association

California State Association of Counties

California State Sheriffs’ Association

California Statewide Law Enforcement Association

City of San Bernardino

Civil Justice Association of California

County of San Bernardino

CSAC Excess Insurance Authority

DJI Technology

Fire Districts Association of California

LIUNA Local 792

Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association

Los Angeles Police Protective League

Orange County Professional Firefighters Association, Local 3631

Riverside Sheriffs Association

OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/13/16)

None received

Prepared by:

4/13/16 15:49:26

**** END ****

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair

2015-2016 Regular Session

Bill No: SB 807 (Author:Gaines)

Version: March 17, 2016

Hearing Date: March 29, 2016

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: RD

SUBJECT

Unmanned aircraft systems

DESCRIPTION

This bill would provide public entities and public employees with immunity from civil liability for any damage to an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system, if the damage was caused while the public entity or public employee was providing, and the unmanned aircraft system was interfering with, the operation, support, or enabling of specified emergency services. “Emergency services” for these purposes would include:

• ambulance services, including, but not limited to, air ambulance services;
• firefighting or firefighting-related services, including, but not limited to, air services related to firefighting or firefighting-related services; or
• search and rescue services, including, but not limited to, air search and rescue services.

This bill would apply the same immunity protection for public entities and employees, above, to emergency responders who are private entities or paid or unpaid volunteers, if those emergency responders are acting within the scope of authority implicitly or expressly provided by a public entity or a public employee.

BACKGROUND

As with most new technologies, the possibility of having potentially thousands of commercial and private unmanned aerial vehicles or “drones” take to California’s skies in the coming years has called into question how well state law is prepared to incorporate these vehicles – and the policy issues associated with their operation – into California’s legal landscape.  At present, the commercial use of drones in the skies over California is fairly restricted; however, the recreational or hobbyist use of drones remains largely unregulated. 

Of particular import to this bill are both the practical safety considerations and the legal implications posed by drones and their users when occupying the same space as emergency response aircraft. To this end, news reports in the last year have focused on instances where drones have interfered with the ability of emergency responders to perform their jobs, such as firefighting. As noted in a CNN article last August:

Of all the elements they must battle in a wildfire, firefighters face a new foe: drones operated by enthusiasts who presumably take close-up video of the disaster.

Five such “unmanned aircraft systems” prevented California firefighters from dispatching helicopters with water buckets for up to 20 minutes over a wildfire that roared Friday onto a Los Angeles area freeway that leads to Las Vegas.

Helicopters couldn’t drop water because five drones hovered over the blaze, creating hazards in smoky winds for a deadly midair disaster, officials said. (Martinez, Vercammen & Brumfield, Above spectacular wildfire on freeway rises new scourge: drones, CNN (Jul. 19, 2015) <http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/18/us/california-freeway-fire/> [as of Mar. 15, 2016].)

Further, in a joint oversight hearing conducted by this Committee and the Joint Legislative Committee on Emergency Management on August 18, 2015, the chief of the state Department of Forestry and Fire Protection testified as to the impact of drones on firefighting efforts. As reported by the Los Angeles Times, a DC-10 air tanker returning to base after fighting the Rocky fire in Northern California came within 50 feet of a drone.  The chief of the state Department of Forestry and Fire Protection commented that the irresponsible use of drones places their crews and pilots in immediate danger. (McGreevy, Private drones are putting firefighters in ‘immediate danger,’ California fire official says, Los Angeles Times (Aug. 18, 2015) <http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-fire-officials-warn-lawmakers-about-threat-of-drones-to-firefighting-aircraft-20150818-story.html> [as of Mar. 15, 2016].) 

Consequently, last year, this Committee heard and approved SB 168 (Gaines and Jackson, 2015) which would have made it unlawful to operate an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system in a knowing, intentional, or reckless manner that prevents or delays the extinguishment of a fire. Additionally, as heard and approved in this Committee, SB 168 would have expressly provided emergency responders (including public entities, public employees, and specified unpaid volunteers) with immunity from civil liability for any damage to an unmanned aircraft system if that unmanned aircraft system interfered with emergency services, as specified. SB 168 was ultimately vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown due to concern that the bill criminalizes conduct that is already proscribed, thereby complicating matters without any commensurate benefit. Notably, this bill does not contain the Penal Code provisions of SB 168 that appear to have been of concern to the Governor.

This bill would now provide public entities, public employees, as well as other emergency responders (including private entities, as well as paid and unpaid volunteers) with immunity from civil liability for any damage to an unmanned aircraft system, if the damage was caused while the public entity, public employee, or other emergency responder was providing certain emergency services and the unmanned aircraft system interfered with, the operation, support, or enabling of those emergency services.

CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW

Existing law provides that besides the personal rights mentioned or recognized in the Government Code, every person has, subject to the qualifications and restrictions provided by law, the right of protection from bodily restraint or harm, from personal insult, from defamation, and from injury to his personal relations. (Civ. Code Sec. 43.)

Existing law provides that every person is bound, without contract, to abstain from injuring the person or property of another, or infringing upon any of his or her rights. (Civ. Code Sec. 1708.)

Existing law provides that everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury to another caused by his or her lack of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or from lack of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself. (Civ. Code Sec. 1714(a).)

Existing law, the Government Tort Claims Act (Act), specifies rules of civil liability that apply to public entities and public employees in California. (Gov. Code Sec. 810 et seq.) The Act generally provides that all public entities, state and local, are liable in tort to the extent declared by statute, subject to stated immunities and defenses. (Gov. Code Sec. 815 et seq.) Public employees are liable to the same extent as private persons, subject to various immunities and defenses. (Gov. Code Sec. 820 et seq.)

Existing law defines a “public entity” to include the state, the Regents of the University of California, the Trustees of the California State University and the California State University, a county, city, district, public authority, public agency, and any other political subdivision or public corporation in the State. Existing law defines a “public employee” to mean an employee of a public entity. (Gov. Code Secs. 811.2, 811.4.)

Existing law governs the liability of public entities and public employees with regard to fire protection. (Gov. Code Sec. 850 et seq.) Existing law generally provides that neither a public agency nor public employee acting in the scope of his employment is liable for any injury resulting from the condition of fire protection or firefighting equipment or facilities, or for any injury caused fighting fires. (Gov. Code Sec. 850.4.)

This bill would add to the Act to provide that a public entity or public employee shall not be liable for any damage to an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system, if the damage was caused while the emergency responder was providing, and the unmanned aircraft system was interfering with, the operation, support, or enabling of any of the following emergency services:

• ambulance services, including, but not limited to, air ambulance services;
• firefighting or firefighting-related services, including, but not limited to, air services related to firefighting or firefighting-related services; or
• search and rescue services, including, but not limited to, air search and rescue services.

This bill would separately add to the Civil Code that an emergency responder shall not be liable for any damage to an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system, if the damage was caused while the emergency responder was providing, and the unmanned aircraft system was interfering with, the operation, support, or enabling of any of the emergency services listed above. This bill would define “emergency responder” for these purposes to include either of the following, if acting within the scope of authority implicitly or expressly provided by a public entity or a public employee, as specified, to provide emergency services:

• a paid or unpaid volunteer; or
• a private entity.

This bill would also define:

• “unmanned aircraft” to mean an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft.
• “unmanned aircraft system” to mean an unmanned aircraft and associated elements, including, but not limited to, communication links and the components that control the unmanned aircraft that are required for the pilot in command to operate safely and efficiently in the national airspace system.

COMMENT

1. Stated need for the bill

According to the author:

Throughout last year’s drought-heightened fire season, private- unauthorized drones repeatedly halted firefighting efforts. The simple presence of these drones forced firefighters to ground mission-critical tanker aircraft, unnecessarily putting pilots, firefighters, civilians and property at risk. Additionally, these rogue drones have interfered with other lifesaving missions, such as air ambulance services.

Senate Bill 807 will help ensure that emergency responders can do their job of protecting the public without worrying about frivolous lawsuits. As drones become more accessible to the public, their presence in the sky is quickly increasing. It is essential that lifesaving services provided by emergency responders be free to continue despite someone’s misplaced desire to capture images for YouTube and the like.

[Specifically, c]urrent law does not provide explicit immunity for emergency responders who damage a drone that is interfering with the emergency services. This bill will clearly state that there is civil immunity in these situations. Impeding one tanker drop could be the difference between life and death of an individual or the loss of an entire neighborhood in flames. Senate Bill 807 is a critical piece of legislation to keep rogue drones from interfering with the most effective response to time-sensitive crises.

2. Bill provides limited immunity from civil liability for damages caused to drones that interfere with the provision of specified emergency services

Civil liability has the primary effect of ensuring that some measure of recourse exists for those persons injured by the negligent or willful acts of others, and the risk of that liability has the primary effect of ensuring parties act reasonably to avoid harm to those to whom they owe a duty. As a general rule, California law provides that everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself. (Civ. Code Sec. 1714(a).)

With respect to governmental entities’ and employees’ liability, questions of liability are primarily governed by the Government Tort Claims Act. The intent of the Tort Claims Act “is not to expand the rights of plaintiffs in suits against governmental entities, but to confine potential governmental liability to rigidly delineated circumstances: immunity is waived only if the various requirements of the [A]ct are satisfied.” (Williams v. Horvath (1976) 16 Cal.3d 834, 838.) The Act provides that all public entities, state and local, are liable in tort to the extent declared by statute, and have certain statutory immunities and defenses. (Gov. Code Sec. 815.) With regard to liability for firefighting, the Act generally provides that neither a public agency nor public employee acting in the scope of his or her employment is liable for any injury resulting from the condition of fire protection or firefighting equipment or facilities, or for any injury caused fighting fires. (Gov. Code Sec. 850.4.)

This bill would additionally provide public entities and public employees with express immunity from civil liability for any damage to an unmanned aircraft system, if the damage was caused while the public entity or employee was providing, and the unmanned aircraft system was interfering with, the operation, support, or enabling of specified emergency services (ambulance services firefighting or firefighting-related services, and search and rescue services). The bill would also provide for the same liability protection for emergency responders that are not public entities or employees, but are, rather, paid or unpaid volunteers and private entities, as long as those volunteers or private entities are acting within the scope of authority implicitly or expressly provided by a public entity or public employee to respond to an emergency situation.

Although immunity provisions are rarely preferable because they, by their nature, prevent an injured party from seeking a particular type of recovery, the Legislature has in limited scenarios allowed for measured immunity from liability to promote other policy goals that could benefit the public. As noted in the Background, recent news reports have surrounded dangers posed by drones to firefighters fighting wildfires in this state. (See Background.) One such article, quoting officials, describes how “[l]ow-flying air tankers cannot share the sky with drones because the small aircraft can be sucked into jet engines, causing the engines to fail and the planes to crash.” (Barbash, Drones impede air battle against California wildfires. “If you fly we can’t,” pleads firefighter, Washington Post (Jul. 31, 2015) <http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/31/if-you-fly-we-cant-pleads-california-firefighter-as-drones-impede-spreading-wildfire-battle/> [as of Aug. 19, 2015].)

As a matter of public policy, the public arguably benefits from knowing that concern of liability from damage caused to drones would not delay or affect the decision-making process of emergency responders in emergency response situations, such as when fighting wildfires, providing ambulance services (including air ambulance services), or conducting search and rescue efforts. Further, as a practical matter, the bill would provide only immunity from damages caused to the unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system (which includes the unmanned aircraft and its associated elements) itself, and even then, only if the drone actually interfered with the emergency services. Additionally, as noted above, public entities and public employees already enjoy immunity from civil liability for any injury resulting from the condition of fire protection or firefighting equipment or facilities, or for any injury caused fighting fires, when acting in the scope of their employment.

3. Governor Brown’s veto of SB 168

This bill, like SB 168 (Gaines and Jackson, 2015) from last year, provides limited civil liability protection to public entities, public employees, and private entities and paid and unpaid volunteers acting within the scope of authority implicitly or expressly provided by a public entity or a public employee to provide emergency services, for any damage to a drone, if the damage was caused during the provision of emergency services and the drone interfered with the provision of those services. SB 168, unlike this bill, however, also would have made it unlawful to knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly operate an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system in a manner that prevents or delays the extinguishment of a fire, or in any way interferes with the efforts of firefighters to control, contain, or extinguish a fire, as specified. In vetoing SB 168, along with eight other bills, Governor Brown stated:

Each of these bills creates a new crime - usually by finding a novel way to characterize and criminalize conduct that is already proscribed. This multiplication and particularization of criminal behavior creates increasing complexity without commensurate benefit. 

Over the last several decades, California's criminal code has grown to more than 5,000 separate provisions, covering almost every conceivable form of human misbehavior. During the same period, our jail and prison populations have exploded. 

Before we keep going down this road, I think we should pause and reflect on how our system of criminal justice could be made more human, more just and more cost-effective. 

Support: California Association of Code Enforcement Officers; California College and University Police Chief Association; California Fire Chiefs Association; California Narcotic Officers Association; California Professional Firefighters; California Special Districts Association; California State Association of Counties (CSAC); CSAC Excess Insurance Authority; California State Sheriffs’ Association; California Statewide Law Enforcement Association; Civil Justice Association of California; County of San Bernardino Fire Districts Association of California; LIUNA Local 792; Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association; Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs; Los Angeles Police Protective League; Orange County Professional Firefighters Association, Local 3631; Riverside Sheriffs Association

Opposition: None Known

HISTORY

Source: California Police Chiefs Association; League of California Cities

Related Pending Legislation: None Known

Prior Legislation:

SB 168 (Gaines and Jackson, 2015) See Background and Comment 3.

SB 167 (Gaines and Jackson, 2015) was substantially similar to the Penal Code provisions of SB 168. This bill died in Senate Public Safety without a hearing.

SB 271 (Gaines, 2015) would have made it an infraction to operate an unmanned aircraft on or above the grounds of a public school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12. This bill was vetoed.

SB 170 (Gaines, 2015) would have provided that a person who knowingly and intentionally operates an unmanned aircraft system below “navigable airspace,” as defined in federal law, overlaying a state prison is guilty of a misdemeanor, and would have also provided, with certain exceptions, that a person who knowingly and intentionally captures images or data of a state prison through the operation of an unmanned aircraft is guilty of a misdemeanor. This bill was vetoed.

AB 14 (Waldron, 2015) would have created the Unmanned Aircraft Systems Task Force, which would be required to research, develop, and formulate a comprehensive policy for unmanned aircraft systems in California. The task force would have been required to submit, among other things, a policy draft and suggested legislation pertaining to unmanned aircraft systems to the Legislature and the Governor on or before January 1, 2018. This bill failed passage in the Assembly Transportation Committee.

**************