Laws Would Legalize Driving Into Protestors - An Alternative

Immunity For Striking Protestors Updates Older Legal Doctrine
WASHINGTON - Feb. 22, 2021 - PRLog -- Bills are being considered in Iowa, Missouri, Oklahoma, Utah, and about a dozen other states to deal with the increasingly common tactic of protestors who deliberately and illegally stand or sit on streets and highways to block traffic, including measures to legally permit drivers to run into them.

Indeed, a bill granting drivers immunity for hitting protestors recently cleared an Oklahoma Senate committee on a 8-1 vote.

Such measures appear to be a modern version of the old legal doctrine of "outlawry," according to public interest law professor John Banzhaf, who suggests that there is a better and more humane way to deal with the problem.

Under early Roman law, and throughout the Middle ages under German law and the common law of England, a person found guilty of certain wrongdoings was declared an "outlaw" - literally a person "outside the law," and no more entitled to any legal protection than a wolf - so it was not only completely lawful but considered meritorious for others to kill him.

Granting legal immunity to drivers who run down protestors illegally blocking a street or highway seems to be an updated version of the concept.

Those proposing and supporting such legislation argue that existing laws which prohibit deliberately blocking traffic obviously are not preventing the increasing use of this frustrating and illegal tactic.

But legislation which would make it easier for anyone who is delayed by a road blockage to sue the offenders, and to hold each person who participated liable for the entirety of the damages from all drivers, under the existing legal doctrine known as "joint and several liability," would probably be far more effective as well as more humane.

Actually, says Banzhaf, such civil legal actions can be brought under existing law, since deliberately blocking cars on a road - so that drivers cannot then readily leave them - constitutes the civil tort of "false imprisonment."

Indeed, this constitutes a so-called intentional tort, for which the plaintiff can be awarded punitive damages as well as damages for the time he was effectively stuck on the street.

In fact, law suits based upon this concept - inspired by Prof. Banzhaf - are currently pending against those who illegally blocked the George Washington Bridge, thereby effectively imprisoning hundreds in their cars.

But legislation to clarify and codify this cause of action, providing minimum damages (e.g. $1000 for each person falsely imprisoned), and making anyone found liable pay the attorney fees of the plaintiffs, would be preferable, and better than authorizing a "purge" (as in the movie) on our streets and highways, he argues.   @profbanzhaf

Email:*** Email Verified
Location:Washington - District of Columbia - United States
Account Email Address Verified     Account Phone Number Verified     Disclaimer     Report Abuse
Public Interest Law Professor John Banzhaf PRs
Trending News
Most Viewed
Top Daily News

Like PRLog?
Click to Share