House proposes amendment on comparative‑negligence defense in assault cases, orders third reading

The House took up S.278, which would prohibit the use of a comparative‑negligence defense in negligence suits arising from sexual assault and related conduct. Representative Burdett (member from West Rutland) presented the judiciary committee’s report and emphasized testimony from a survivor and other witnesses in favor of the prohibition.

Burdett framed the bill’s purpose in moral terms: members were urged not to tell survivors—especially children—that they bear responsibility for assaults. He used a past case to illustrate how a jury-assigned percentage of responsibility reduced a young victim’s award and argued that applying comparative negligence in such contexts can compound harm to survivors.

Opponents and some questioners expressed concern about broadening changes to negligence law, warning that modifying comparative negligence could have ripple effects beyond intentional‑conduct cases. One member said hard cases can make bad law and expressed discomfort with a sweeping change to negligence doctrine that could alter standards for non‑intentional torts.

The House accepted the committee’s recommendation to propose amendments to the Senate and ordered third reading. Committee vote counts were reported on the floor as part of the committee’s record.

Next steps: the House has proposed to the Senate that the bill be amended as recommended; third reading was ordered on the floor.