[blindlaw] Is Idaho really that perilous?

[Daniel McBride]

Aaron:

I believe you are misinterpreting this provision.  You need to reduce the
provision to its fundamental context, setting aside the variables.  In its
simplest terms, tracking its fundamental elements, this provision says:

Any person who approaches an individual appearing to be a disabled person
and who intentionally fails to take action necessary to avoid an accident or
injury to the disabled person is guilty of a misdemeanor.

There is nothing in this provision that places a duty on any third party,
who is not the person approaching the apparent disabled person, to take any
action to prevent an accident or injury to the disabled person.  Although it
is easy to see how the variable elements might confuse you, there is no duty
imposed on any person other than the person intentionally failing to avoid
the accident or injury.

Daniel McBride
Fort Worth

-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Aaron
Cannon via blindlaw
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 11:21 PM
To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
Subject: [blindlaw] Is Idaho really that perilous?

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/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net