Tennessee Lawmakers Want Protection For Drivers Who Hit Road-Blocking Protesters

NASHVILLE, TN — Two Republican Tennessee state legislators are seeking legal protections for drivers who hit protesters marching in the street.

State Rep. Matthew Hill, Republican of Jonesborough, and State Sen. Bill Ketron, Republican of Murfreesboro, have filed a measure which would provide civil immunity if a driver hits a protester in a public right of way, provided that the driver's actions were not "willful or wanton" and that the driver exercised due care (for updates on the General Assembly and other local news that affects you, find and subscribe to your local Middle Tennessee Patch).

Hill insists the bill isn't retaliation against the rising tide of street protests in te wake of the election of President Donald Trump, nor a reaction to earlier marches led by Black Lives Matter which frequently blocked surface streets and even interstates, but is instead a matter of public safety.

“We are not endorsing anyone running over a person with a car, whether it is protesters or anyone else. If someone intentionally harms a person, they are going to be charged with a crime, period. There is a clear difference, however, between peacefully protesting and lawless rioters in the middle of a public roadway who jeopardize the safety of our families. This is a public safety bill that is meant to protect everyone’s right to peacefully protest and I look forward to seeing this commonsense legislation passed into law," he said in a statement.

Respected attorney David Raybin, who helped craft much of Tennessee's criminal code, told NewsChannel 5 that "due care" is usually a matter left to courts rather than legislators.

"The issue of due care is a jury question, you can't determine that at the front end normally. I don't think we want these things decided in the streets," he said.

The doctrine of "due care" is well-established in personal injury cases, with a key finding made in the famous case of Davies' donkey, an 1842 English court case which established the doctrine of "last clear chance." The judges in that case held that negligence on behalf of an injured party — be it a donkey owner who left his animal too close to a road or a protester marching in the street — doesn't bar him from recovering damages if a defendant — a man driving his cart too fast on 19th-century English back roads or a motorist on West End — could have avoided the accident using due care.

Hill introduced similar legislation in the last session of the General Assembly. This year's version has passed the pro forma first reading in both the House and Senate.

Image via Shutterstock