Legislative Report
| Jurisdiction | Utah,United States |
| Citation | Vol. 2 No. 5 Pg. 32 |
| Pages | 32 |
| Publication year | 1989 |
1989 Legislative General Session Review
Rep. H. Craig Moody, J.
Majority Leader, Utah House of Representatives, and Robin L. Riggs, Associate General Counsel, Utah Legislature
Submitted to the Utah Bar Journal, March 23, 1989
As the 1989 General Session of the 48th Legislature of the state of Utah began, the majority of the legislators set forth three top priorities: (1) full funding of the growth in education; (2) passage of a spending/tax limitation; and (3) reduction in state taxes. By the time the session had adjourned, most of these priorities had been met.
Overall spending from Utah's General Fund increased approximately $100 million, with about half going to education. Teachers' salaries, the state's contribution to teachers' medical costs and the weighted pupil units were significantly increased.[1]
Spending and tax limitations were passed that tied spending increases to the rate of inflation and population growth.[2] The spending limitation may be exceeded only by a vote of the people or by at least two-thirds of the members of both the House and the Senate.
The House and the Senate could not agree on a tax reduction, however. Although the House passed a quarter cent sales tax reduction and an income tax reduction, the Senate failed to pass either proposal.[3]
But tax and spending policies were not the only issues discussed on the hill. By the time the session ended, a record 1098 bills and resolutions were drafted, 782 were introduced and 343 passed. Four of these were vetoed. In addition to the matters of general concern mentioned above, the 48th Legislature also passed several bills that are of special concern to members of the Utah State Bar. A few of them are summarized below.
TORT REFORM.
The Tort and Insurance Reform Task Force (the "task force") created in 1988 by the Legislature studied several proposals relating to the issue of punitive damages.[4] However, only two bills passed. "Punitive Damages Amendments"[5] permits punitive damages to be awarded "only if compensatory or general damages are awarded and it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the acts or omissions of the tortfeasor are the result of willful and malicious or intentionally fraudulent conduct, or conduct that manifests a knowing and reckless indifference toward, and a disregard of, the rights of others." This limitation does not apply if the claim arose out of the tortfeasor's operation of a motor vehicle while voluntarily intoxicated. Evidence of the tortfeasor's financial condition is not admissible until liability for punitive damages has been determined. Under the same bill, 50 percent of any punitive damages in excess of $20, 000 is payable to the state General Fund after payment of attorneys' fees and costs.
Another task force proposal passed by the Legislature is "Products Liability Statute of Limitations."[6] It repeals the statute of repose contained in Utah's Product Liability Act[7] that was declared unconstitutional by the Utah Supreme Court in 1985.[8] The task force had proposed that the faulty statute of repose be replaced with extensive provisions limiting liability under certain circumstances. However, the bill that was passed only establishes a two-year statute of limitations from the time both the harm and its cause should have been discovered. Although not all of the proposals of the task force were passed, the life of the task force itself was extended until December 31, 1989.[9]
FAMILY LAW.
A proposal regarding the visitation rights of noncustodial parents was also enacted. The bill[10] provides that when a noncustodial parent has a visitation right by court order and the custodial parent denies visitation by not informing the noncustodial parent of the address of the child, the noncustodial parent may file an order to show cause why the visitation right should not be enforced or custody transferred to the noncustodial parent. The noncustodial parent may petition the court to issue a subpoena duces tecum requiring the Office of Recovery Services to provide current addresses of the custodial parent and children, if available. Any noncustodial parent with a charge pending or conviction of child or spouse abuse is not permitted to petition the court for this service.
The Legislature, as expected, enacted a statewide child support schedule with guidelines for the courts and established a rebuttable presumption in favor of the guidelines set by the federal Family Support Act of 1988.[11] Although such guidelines are currently in place, [12] the state would have...
To continue reading
Request your trial