Other, States

Florida considering spaceflight indemnification bill

The Florida Legislature, following the lead of Virginia, is considering legislation to provide liability immunity for suborbital commercial vehicle operators. The legislation, HB 737, was introduced in the Florida House of Representatives in January by Rep. David Simmons, an Orlando-area Republican, and is currently working its way through various House committees. The legislation would make any “spaceflight entity” (any company or organization with an FAA launch, reentry, or spaceport license) “not liable for injury to or death of a participant resulting from the inherent risks of spaceflight launch activities”, except in those cases of gross negligence or intentional harm. The legislation would also require spaceflight participants to sign a statement that contains the following:

“WARNING: Under Florida law, there is no liability for an injury to or death of a participant in a spaceflight activity provided by a spaceflight entity if such injury or death results from the inherent risks of the spaceflight activity. Inherent risks of spaceflight activities include, among others, risks of injury to land, equipment, persons, and animals, as well as the potential for you to act in a negligent manner that may contribute to your injury or death. You are assuming the risk of participating in this spaceflight activity.”

The legislation, which is patterned after a similar bill that was signed into law in Virginia last year, attracted the attention of the Palm Beach Post, which published an editorial about the bill on Thursday. Or, rather, it mentions the bill in passing, trying to draw it into the discussion of the USA 193 intercept, and doing so poorly:

If Virginia isn’t going to hold such companies responsible for dropping a satellite on a condominium, the only way Florida can compete for that emerging industry is to give Buck Rogers entrepreneurs a pass if they happen to knock off a few Floridians. Hey, whose fault is it if gravity acting on spacecraft kills a hapless golfer or two?

If Jac Wilder VerSteeg, the deputy editor of the Post’s editorial page and the author of the editorial, had actually read the legislation, he would see it would have nothing to do with “dropping a satellite on a condominium”. But it would have then made the editorial that much less entertaining.

9 comments to Florida considering spaceflight indemnification bill

  • […] introduced in Florida, House Bill 737 includes the following proposed warning statement (hat tip to Space Politics): (b) The warning statement described in paragraph (a) shall contain, at a minimum, the following […]

  • […] has more on his blog here. You can also read the proposed Florida Senate and House bills […]

  • Let us hope the Florida legislature can adopt the Virginia law on spaceflight liability and immunity. Perhaps next, ‘ZeroG, ZeroTax’ too?

    http://spaceports.blogspot.com/2008/02/zerog-zerotax-passes-in-virginia.html

  • Vladislaw

    How many TONS of space junk have come down to earth so far since the inception of the space program? How many people have been killed so far to date from falling space junk?

    You have a better chance of winning the lottery then getting hit by space junk.

  • D. Messier

    Yeah, a shift of tax and legal liability away from billionaire investors like Paul Allen and Richard Branson and large companies like Northop Grumman onto taxpapers and customers. Governments are also taxing people directly to pay for facilities like Spaceport America in New Mexico.

    Very interesting. Do you guys that under these types of bills that anyone would be able to actually prove something like gross negligence? Or would it just be a bar too high for almost anyone to meet.

  • Vladislaw

    It is more of a question of do you want an economic activity to begin or not. I am a billionaire and can invest in triple A bonds and get a guaranteed return of X, why would anyone invest in a new fledgling industry and assume a risk of losing an entire fortune? I doubt they would, so the question is, do you want the investment to take place or not?

    If you do not want the economic activity to take place at all, you raise the entrance costs so high in both monetary and personal risk that no one would be willing to assume them and the investment does not take place.
    How do you raise those cost? Increase the amount of insurance, red tape, financing requirements, personal liability et cetera.

    The USA has had auto accidents resulting in death from 25,000 to 50,000 per year and no one bats an eye, year in, year out, over and over and over. Plane crashes, boats sinking, people die in every form of transportation we have, year in year out. Why are you not complaining about the planes that fly overhead? Planes crash all the time, people die in plane crashes all the time, why no complaints about the poor taxpayers that fund airports? Why no complaints about every other form of transportation?

    You can not have it both ways, because all transportation industries got subsidies in one form or another over the years, trains, planes and automobiles. So to single out private commercial space flight and not every other industry and their histories of subsidies makes your whole point moot.

    “Yeah, a shift of tax and legal liability away from billionaire investors like Paul Allen and Richard Branson and large companies like Northop Grumman onto taxpapers and customers. Governments are also taxing people directly to pay for facilities like Spaceport America in New Mexico.
    Very interesting. Do you guys that under these types of bills that anyone would be able to actually prove something like gross negligence? Or would it just be a bar too high for almost anyone to meet”

  • D. Messier

    Some interesting points. A bit strident. Sort of a Bushian “with us or against us” argument in which one either buys into this whole hog or one doesn’t want ANY economic activity to occur at all and wants to raise costs SO HIGH as to bar entry even by people with so much money they couldn’t spend it in 10 lifetimes.

    I reject the either-or thinking you’ve trotted out here.

    As to your points, I do carry liability insurance as a driver. Auto manufacturers are liable for defects in their products. So are organizations involved in mass transit. Airplanes are extremely safe – despite living near airports on and off for the last decade, the only plane that crashed nearby was the one terrorists flew into the Pentagon.

    So, you didn’t answer the question. Do you think the “gross negligence” and “willful harm” provisions of these laws are such that almost nobody would be able to prove them in court?

  • Vladislaw

    “So, you didn’t answer the question. Do you think the “gross negligence” and “willful harm” provisions of these laws are such that almost nobody would be able to prove them in court?” D. Messier

    Vladislaw wrote @ February 29th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
    How many TONS of space junk have come down to earth so far since the inception of the space program? How many people have been killed so far to date from falling space junk?

    You have a better chance of winning the lottery then getting hit by space junk.

    I sorta already had stated that I do not think we have to worry about falling space junk anymore then we worry today about a plane crashing into your house, does it happen? Yes, often enough that anyone gives it a second thought? No.

    The way the current law is written I believe it is only a ten year period that companies get a moritorum on liability, they still have to jump through reglatory hoops BEFORE any launches, so it is not going to be Billy Bob, welding up some tanks in his garage and launching them in the back yard.

    He is talking about:
    gross negligence
    n. carelessness which is in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, and is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people’s rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, but it is just shy of being intentionally evil.
    http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=838

    If someone did that with a rocket launch you are talking about prison time. For to be gross negligence they would almost have to be pointing the rocket at your house. Passengers will be signing a wavier to ride rockets to space, they have to accept the risk themselves but it has been regulated that it has to be “informed” concent. You will literally have to take a risk assetment class BEFORE you ride.

    After this ten year period the launch companies will then fall under FAA safety rules and standards which will be defined during this initial ten year period, as we have actually LEARN what the risks are and the margins in a totally knew industry. How can you assign insurance risk without launching and learning the curves. All transportation systems go through these shake out periods. Transportation vehicles that kill passengers fail, those that don’t succeed, but in order to find out WHICH is which, we FIRST have to let it happen. Will people die? Yes. Tomorrow will there be an automobile accident in one of the 50 states and will someone die? Yes. Will some be innocent bystanders? Yes. Will some of the drivers not have insurance? Yes.

    For me, I can just not imagine someone trying to launch customers with the willful intent of killing them, or killing the launch crew, or dropping rockets on houses. Not with the hoops the government makes a launch company jump through.

  • D. Messier

    Yes, I get the informed consent part. I haven’t made any arguments concerning space debris. I think that was a newspaper in Florida, if you read the thread.

    You say companies will have to jump through regulatory hoops (which I guess is supposed to be comforting), but they won’t fall under any FAA safety standards and rules for 10 years. So, how much protection does that give to people paying the bill.

    But, I guess as you say, they’ll spend the first decade using wealthy customers as guinea pigs for their systems. Then what? You’re assuming the regulations will be customer friendly and not simply what the moguls want to max out their profits. History is replete with technology that got pushed ahead for reasons of profit and regulators not doing much to safeguard passengers. The railroads killed a lot of people. It didn’t stop them from making a lot of money in the process. Or look at steamships; the companies pretty much controlled the British Board of Trade, which made the regs that allowed the White Star Line to go to sea without insufficient lifeboats and emergency training.

    Scaled Composites has already lost three people on the ground doing a supposedly routine and safe test. I guess we’ll find out soon how liable the Scaled folks for these deaths. Wonder if the prosecutor will bring criminal or civil charges.

    Historically, progress must go on and we must learn and people must die. OK. But, some of these people who may go are my friends. The thought of having to scrape their remains off the desert floor while the billionaires who launched them are granted almost complete immunity is a bit disturbing.

Leave a Reply to Jack Kennedy Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>