[blindlaw] Is Idaho really that perilous?

[Aaron Cannon]

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