[blindlaw] Is Idaho really that perilous?

ALBERT ELIA al.elia at aol.com
Sat Jun 21 15:13:11 UTC 2014


As I read it, the law only applies to those who “approach" a disabled person, so a bystander has no duty unless he or she “approaches” the disabled person and "Intentionally fails to stop, change course, speak or take such other action as is necessary to avoid any accident or injury.”

Now, I would hope that “approach” means “move in a direction toward that would result in collision.” It would be odd to construe the law otherwise: ”Approach” loses meaning if it is interpreted to mean “walking past,” or “moving towards in a direction that is not away from, but that will not result in collision.”  If so, the law seems fine to me: it criminalizes failure of an actor  to warn a disabled person of an impending collision with the actor, and criminalizes the failure of the  actor to take steps to avoid such a collision. As for applying the law to service animals and assistance devices, I’m in favor, as it treats the service animal/assistance device as an extension of the person — a movement in the law that is growing and, in my opinion, welcome.

—Al

On Jun 21, 2014, at 0:20, Aaron Cannon via blindlaw <blindlaw at nfbnet.org> wrote:

> While looking at the Idaho state law dealing with service animals, I
> found the following section which surprised me a bit:
> 
> Idaho Code Title 18. Crimes and Punishments. Chapter 58. Public Health
> and Safety.
> 
> Section 18-5811. Action required to avoid accident or injury to
> disabled person-- Prohibited intentional actions--Penalties
> 
> (1) Any person, whether a pedestrian, operating a vehicle or
> otherwise, who approaches an individual appearing to be a disabled
> person or lawfully using an assistance device or assistance dog, and
> who:
> 
> (a) Intentionally fails to stop, change course, speak or take such
> other action as is necessary to avoid any accident or injury to the
> disabled person, the assistance device or dog, is guilty of a
> misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not
> exceeding six (6) months, or by a fine of not less than fifty dollars
> ($50.00) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both.
> 
> ...
> 
> The part I found interesting was: "Intentionally fails to ...
> speak..."  I find it curious that the law, as I read it, fails to
> differentiate between someone who is, for example, driving a car or
> bicycle, and likely to be involved in the accident, verses an
> uninvolved third-party.
> 
> The statute would seem to be saying that, if you are in the vicinity
> of a disabled person who is about to have an accident or suffer an
> injury, you have a duty to protect them, regardless of whether or not
> you have anything to do with the situation.  Actually, after a closer
> read, it's not just the person you have a duty to protect, but their
> dog and/or assistance device as well.
> 
> I sincerely hope that this wasn't the intent of the Idaho legislature,
> and that courts will consider the likely intent of the law, rather
> than what it seems to say.  More likely, I'm missing something obvious
> due to my lack of knowledge in these areas.
> 
> Anyway, it caught my attention, and I just thought I'd share.
> 
> Aaron
> 
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/al.elia%40aol.com





More information about the BlindLaw mailing list