29–006 

108TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 108–679 

VOLUNTEER PILOT ORGANIZATION PROTECTION ACT OF 

2004 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2004.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 1084] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 1084) to provide liability protection to nonprofit volunteer 

pilot organizations flying for public benefit and to the pilots and 

staff of such organizations, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill 

as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

The Amendment ...................................................................................................... 2 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 3 

Background and Need for the Legislation ............................................................. 3 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 6 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 7 

Vote of the Committee ............................................................................................. 7 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 7 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 7 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 7 

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 8 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 8 

Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion .......................................................... 8 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 9 

Markup Transcript .................................................................................................. 10 

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 35 

2 

THE AMENDMENT

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act of 

2004’’. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE. 

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 

(1) Scores of public benefit nonprofit volunteer pilot organizations provide 

valuable services to communities and individuals. 

(2) In calendar year 2001, nonprofit volunteer pilot organizations provided 

long-distance, no-cost transportation for over 30,000 people in times of special 

need. 

(3) Such organizations are no longer able to reasonably purchase non-owned 

aircraft liability insurance to provide liability protection, and thus face a highly 

detrimental liability risk. 

(4) Such organizations have supported the interests of homeland security by 

providing volunteer pilot services at times of national emergency. 

(b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this Act is to promote the activities of nonprofit 

volunteer pilot organizations flying for public benefit and to sustain the availability 

of the services that such organizations provide, including transportation at no cost 

to financially needy medical patients for medical treatment, evaluation, and diagnosis, as well as other flights of compassion and flights for humanitarian and charitable purposes. 

SEC. 3. LIABILITY PROTECTION FOR NONPROFIT VOLUNTEER PILOT ORGANIZATIONS FLYING 

FOR PUBLIC BENEFIT AND TO PILOTS AND STAFF OF SUCH ORGANIZATIONS. 

Section 4 of the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 14503) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a)(4)— 

(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as (i) and (ii), respectively; 

(B) by inserting ‘‘(A)’’ after ‘‘(4)’’; 

(C) by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’ and 

(D) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(B) the harm was caused by a volunteer of a nonprofit volunteer pilot organization that flies for public benefit, while the volunteer was flying in furtherance of the purpose of the organization and was operating an aircraft for which 

the volunteer was properly licensed and insured.’’; and 

(2) in subsection (c)— 

(A) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ before ‘‘Nothing’’; and 

(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 

‘‘(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a nonprofit volunteer pilot organization 

that flies for public benefit, and the staff, mission coordinators, officers, and directors (whether volunteer or otherwise) of such organization or a referring agency of 

such organization, shall not be liable with respect to harm caused to any person by 

a volunteer of such organization, while the volunteer is flying in furtherance of the 

purpose of the organization and is operating an aircraft for which the volunteer is 

properly licensed and has certified to such organization that such volunteer has in 

force insurance for operating such aircraft.’’. 

SEC. 4. REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL. 

(a) STUDY REQUIRED.—The Attorney General shall carry out a study on the 

availability of insurance to nonprofit volunteer pilot organizations that fly for public 

benefit. In carrying out the study, the Attorney General shall make findings with 

respect to— 

(1) whether nonprofit volunteer pilot organizations are able to obtain insurance; 

(2) if no, then why; 

(3) if yes, then on what terms such insurance is offered; and 

(4) if the inability of nonprofit volunteer pilot organizations to obtain insurance has any impact on the associations’ ability to operate. 

(b) REPORT.—After completing the study, the Attorney General shall submit to 

Congress a report on the results of the study. The report shall include the findings 

of the study and any conclusions and recommendations that the Attorney General 

considers appropriate. 

3 

1See, e.g., State and Local Implementation of Existing Charitable Choice Programs, 107th 

Cong. 13 (2001), Volunteer Liability Legislation, Hearing on H.R. 911 and H.R. 1167 Before the 

House Committee on the Judiciary, 105th Cong. 6 (1997), Health Care Reform Issues: Antitrust, 

Medical Malpractice Liability, and Volunteer Liability, Hearing on H.R. 911, H.R. 2925, H.R. 

2938 Before the House Committee on the Judiciary, 104th Cong. 66 (1995). 2See, e.g. H.R. 911, 105th Cong. 6 (1997), H.R. 1167, 105th Cong. 6 (1997), H.R. 7, 107th 

Cong. 13 (2001). 3 H. Rep. No. 105–101, Part 1 (1997). 

4 Id. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 1084, the ‘‘Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act,’’ 

amends the Volunteer Protection Act to include volunteer pilots 

and volunteer pilot organizations within the scope of its protections. Under present law, nonprofit volunteer pilot organizations 

and their pilots that provide life-saving medical flights without 

compensation are vulnerable to costly-often frivolous-litigation that 

undermines the ability of these organizations to provide critical volunteer flight services in a timely manner. In addition, institutions 

that refer patients to volunteer pilot organizations are presently 

subject to legal jeopardy. H.R. 1084 protects and promotes the important work of volunteer pilot organizations by creating limited 

protection against liability to volunteer pilot organizations and pilots so that they are able to procure necessary insurance and continue their important operations. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

VOLUNTEER ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR LEGAL STATUS

Volunteerism and the Advent of the ‘‘Lawsuit Culture’’ 

In the United States, a multitude of organizations exist solely for 

the purpose of helping their communities, both locally and nationally. These volunteer and nonprofit organizations make use of volunteers who selflessly give of their time and resources to benefit 

others. However, America’s long tradition of volunteerism and generosity has been undermined by what has become a new American 

tradition: the lawsuit culture. In recent decades, actual lawsuits 

and fears of liability (both rational and irrational) have increasingly become a deterrent to people who might otherwise have given 

of their time or resources to better their community and country. 

Congressional Efforts to Assess and Address Legal Attacks on Volunteer Organizations 

The Judiciary Committee and Congress have previously recognized that the simple fear of liability, if left unchecked, would 

cause potential volunteers to stay home. The Committee has held 

hearings 1 in recent years about various aspects of this problem 

and has advanced several pieces of legislation 2 designed to limit liability for volunteers and volunteer, non-profit, or charitable organizations. Some of the evidence gathered during these hearings 

bears repeating. According to a report by the Independent Sector, 

a national coalition of 800 organizations, the percentage of Americans volunteering dropped from 54% in 1989 to 51% in 1991 and 

48% in 1993.3 Gallup polls have shown that 1 in 6 potential volunteers reported that they withheld their services due to fear of exposure to liability lawsuits.4 The Committee’s hearings also brought 

4 

5 Volunteer Liability Legislation: Hearing on H.R. 911 and H.R. 1167 Before the House Committee on the Judiciary, 105th Cong. 6, at 21 (1997). 6 Id. at 26. 7 Id. at 23 8 H. Rep. No. 105–101, Part 1 (1997). 

9 Id. 

10 Volunteer Liability Legislation: Hearing on H.R. 911 and H.R. 1167, supra, 105th Cong. at 

56. 11 Id. at 51. 12Pub. L. No. 105–19; codified at 42 U.S.C. § 14503 et. seq. (2003). 

to light how the general fear of liability is borne out by anecdotal 

examples of the types of lawsuits that have been brought. One Little League organization chose to settle out of court rather than face 

possible excessive damage awards when it was sued by a woman 

who was hit by a ball her own daughter failed to catch.5 When a 

youth suffered a paralyzing injury in a volunteer supervised Boy 

Scout game of touch football, he filed a multimillion dollar lawsuit 

against the adult supervisors and the Boy Scouts.6 In California, 

a volunteer Mountain Rescue member helped paramedics aid a 

climber who had fallen and sustained injuries to his spine; his reward was a $12 million lawsuit for damages.7

In addition to causing potential volunteers to stay at home or refrain from certain needed activities, the Committee’s hearings 

showed that the liability threat has had very real financial consequences. Many nonprofit organizations have encountered dramatically rising costs for liability insurance due to fears of litigation. The average reported increase for insurance premiums for 

nonprofits over the period of 1985–1988 was 155%.8 The Executive 

Director of the Girl Scout Council of Washington, D.C. said in a 

February 1995 letter that ‘‘locally we must sell 87,000 boxes of . . . 

Girl Scout cookies each year to pay for [our] liability insurance.’’ 9

Dr. Thomas Jones, Managing Director of the Washington, D.C. office of Habitat for Humanity, testified that ‘‘[t]here are Habitat affiliate boards for whom the largest single administrative cost is the 

perceived necessity of purchasing liability insurance to protect 

board members. These are funds which otherwise would be used to 

build more houses [for] more persons in need.’’ 10 During the same 

hearing, John Graham, the CEO of the American Diabetes Association, added that ‘‘[i]t is no coincidence that the issue of protecting 

volunteers has followed massive increases in both the size of litigation claims and the cost of liability insurance.’’ 11

Volunteer Protection Act 

Based on the evidence gathered in such hearings, the Committee 

and Congress took actions to remedy the growing problem of liability fears for volunteers. The most notable action in recent years 

was consideration and passage of Federal legislation during the 

105th Congress that became known as the ‘‘Volunteer Protection 

Act’’ (VPA).12 The final legislation signed into law by President 

Clinton on June 18, 1997 was identical to H.R. 911 as reported by 

the House Committee on the Judiciary earlier that year. The Federal legislation setting a uniform national standard for limiting the 

liability of volunteers was preceded by a patchwork of state laws 

with similar purposes, which the VPA largely preempted as well as 

preempting relevant State tort laws. However, these earlier state 

efforts to limit liability for volunteers are noteworthy because they 

reflected a pre-existing national consensus that volunteers and volVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 Sep 14, 2004 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR679.XXX HR679
5 

13 N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 2A: 53A–7 to 7.1 (West 1983). 14Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60–3601 (1987). 15Ohio. Rev. Code Ann. § 2305.38 (Anderson Supp. 1987). 16Wis. Stat. §§ 181.297, 180.0828. 17Ga. Code Ann. § 105–114 (Harrison 1984). 18 ‘‘Volunteer’’ is defined in the VPA as a person who perfoms services for a non-profit and 

who receives no more than $500 per year for such services. 

unteer organizations ought to be encouraged by reducing the fear 

of legal liability. 

The common law of all fifty states allows individuals to collect 

monetary damages in tort for personal injury or property damage 

caused by another person’s negligence or willful conduct. Almost all 

of these states, however, have limited the liability of volunteers 

and charitable organizations to some extent. New Jersey provides 

that charities and their volunteers are immune from liability for ordinary negligence.13 In Kansas, a volunteer or nonprofit organization is immune from liability for negligence if the organization carries general liability insurance coverage.14 Ohio offers broad immunity for volunteers of charitable organizations.15 Wisconsin state 

law limits the liability of volunteers of non-stock corporations organized under Chapter 181.16 Georgia grants immunity for members, 

directors, officers, and trustees of charities from negligence claims 

asserted by beneficiaries of the charity.17 Each of these states and 

others have recognized the need to encourage good works and protect volunteers and nonprofit organizations from tort liability for 

accidents that arise in the normal course of their dealings. 

The VPA was intended to encourage people to do necessary volunteer work for nonprofit and governmental entities by offering immunization from liability under state tort law for ordinary negligence. The VPA only protects ‘‘volunteers’’ 18 for incidents that 

arise in the scope of their volunteer work, and it does not protect 

willful or criminal conduct and gross negligence. The VPA also limits punitive damages and non-economic damages for those individuals found liable. However, the VPA does not protect nonprofit organizations and government entities themselves from liability for 

negligence of their volunteers unless state law provides ‘‘charitable 

immunity’’ for such organizations. Hence, under the common law 

doctrine of respondeat superior, volunteer organizations and entities are still generally vicariously liable for the negligence or their 

employees and volunteers. 

The VPA also allows states to declare that affirmatively the Act 

does not apply to suits in which all the parties to the action are 

citizens of the state. The VPA became effective on September 16, 

1997, and did not apply retroactively to suits brought before that 

date. The VPA represents a great improvement by setting a comprehensive and consistent standard governing the tort liability of 

volunteers and thereby encouraging their good works. However, the 

fear of liability exposure still affects and hampers volunteer and 

non-profit organizations. Subsequent efforts in Congress since passage of the VPA have focused on some of the remaining gaps in liability protection for both volunteer organizations themselves and 

their donors. For example, in the 107th Congress H.R. 7, the 

‘‘Charitable Choice Act of 2001’’ as passed by the House contained 

provisions limiting liability for persons or entities who donated 

equipment to charitable organizations. 

6 

VOLUNTEER PILOT ORGANIZATIONS

Volunteer pilot organizations and the pilots who fly for them are 

involved in a range of activities constituting what may generally be 

called ‘‘public benefit aviation.’’ The activities of public benefit aviation include environmental observation, wilderness rescue, delivery 

of medical supplies and organs, and transport of medical patients. 

In the area of medical patient transport alone, volunteer pilot organizations provided long distance transportation at no cost to over 

40,000 patients and their escorts in 2003. 

However, the activities of volunteer pilots and volunteer organizations are not protected from liability by the VPA, which provided 

limited liability protection to a range of volunteers and volunteer 

organizations. As a result, volunteer pilot organizations (such as 

the Air Care Alliance) and the pilots who fly for them have come 

under legal attack for providing vital air transportation services to 

needy patients. Spiraling costs associated with this litigation have 

increased insurance premiums for these organizations and creating 

difficulty in obtaining the necessary insurance because of liability 

exposure fears. In addition, hospitals and other medical establishments are leery of referring patients to volunteer pilot medical 

transport services because of their own fear of liability exposure 

based on the simple act of recommending a needy patient to the 

care of a volunteer pilot association. 

H.R. 1084, THE ‘‘VOLUNTEER PILOT ORGANIZATION PROTECTION ACT’’ 

H.R. 1084 was introduced by Representative Schrock on March 

5, 2003. The legislation is intended to promote the publicly beneficial activities of volunteer pilot organizations and their employees 

by exempting them from liability when flying volunteer missions in 

furtherance of the purposes of such organizations. The bill is designed to accomplish this by amending § 4 of the VPA to ensure 

that volunteer pilot organizations and their employees, officers, and 

volunteer pilots acting within the scope of the mission of such organizations are explicitly covered by the VPA. The legislation also 

provides limited protection to institutions (such as hospitals) that 

refer patients to these organizations. The exceptions to the general 

liability protections contained in the existing Federal statute would 

still apply (i.e., intentional or criminal misconduct, certain State 

laws on respondeat superior, or adherence to licensing or risk management standards). 

HEARINGS

The full Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing on H.R. 1084 

and two related bills, H.R. 1787, and H.R. 3369, on July 20, 2004. 

Testimony was received from Mr. Edward R. Boyer, President and 

CEO of Mercy Medical Airlift and Vice Chairman, Angel Flight 

America, testified in favor of H.R. 3369. According to Mr. Boyer’s 

testimony volunteer pilot organizations and the pilots who fly for 

them are involved in a range of activities constituting what may 

generally be called ‘‘public benefit aviation’’ but need liability relief 

in order to obtain necessary insurance and continue operating with 

pilots willing to perform these volunteer duties. 

7 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On September 8, 2004, the full Committee on the Judiciary met 

in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 1084, 

with an amendment, by a voice vote, a quorum being present. 

VOTE OF THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee notes that there were no 

recorded votes during the Committee’s consideration of H.R. 1084. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the findings 

and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does not provide new 

budgetary authority or increased tax expenditures. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with respect to 

the bill, H.R. 1084, the following estimate and comparison prepared 

by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2004. 

Hon. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER Jr., 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1084, the Volunteer Pilot 

Organization Protection Act of 2004. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Lanette J. Walker (for 

federal costs), and Melissa Merrell (for the state and local impact). 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN, Director. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 1084—Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act of 2004 

H.R. 1084 would provide immunity to volunteer pilot organizations, their employees, officers, and volunteer pilots from liability 

in certain civil suits alleging harm resulting from such individuals 

acting with the scope of the organization’s mission. Such organizations typically provide wilderness rescue or medical evacuation 

services. 

8 

CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would result in no 

significant costs to the federal government. H.R. 1084 would not affect direct spending or revenues. 

H.R. 1084 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined in 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, but CBO estimates that the 

resulting costs, if any, would not be significant and would be well 

below the threshold established in that act ($60 million in 2004, 

adjusted annually for inflation). Specifically, the bill would exempt 

volunteer pilots and volunteer pilot organizations from Liability 

under state tort laws for injuries that may occur during the course 

of their volunteer activities. The bill contains no new private-sector 

mandates. 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Lanette J. Walker 

(for federal costs), and Melissa Merrell (for the state and local impact). This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy 

Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. 1084 would protect and promote the important work of volunteer pilot organizations by creating limited liability protections to volunteer pilot organizations so they are able to attract needed pilots and procure 

necessary insurance and continue their important operations. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for this legislation in article I, § 8 of the Constitution. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

The following discussion describes H.R. 1084 as reported by the 

Judiciary Committee. 

Section 1—Short Title 

Section 1 provides that H.R. 1084 may be cited as the ‘‘Volunteer 

Pilot Organization Protection Act of 2004.’’ 

Section 2—Findings and Purpose 

(a) FINDINGS—Subsection 2(a) cites findings about the beneficial nature of public benefit non-profit volunteer aviation organizations, the benefits provided to those served by such organizations, and the difficulty such organizations face in obtaining reasonable insurance due to potential liability exposure. 

(b) PURPOSE—Subsection 2(b) sets out the purpose of the Act, 

which is: ‘‘to promote the activities of non-profit volunteer pilot organizations flying for public benefit and to sustain the availability 

of the services that such organizations provide.’’ 

Section 3—Liability Protection for Nonprofit Volunteer Pilot Organizations Flying for Public Benefit and to the Pilots and Staff 

of Such Organizations. 

Section 3 amends the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 

§ 14503) by first creating an exception to the section of the VPA 

9 

that does NOT currently extend the liability protections of the Act 

to any activity involving the volunteer operating a vehicle that is 

required under state law to be licensed and insured to operate. Secondly, section 3 extends the protection of the VPA to cover volunteer pilot organizations. 

Section 3 does this by first extending the VPA’s protection to volunteer pilots themselves adding a new § 14503(a)(4)(B) that provides that harm caused by the volunteer pilots flying in furtherance of the purpose of the organization is within the VPA’s liability 

protections for volunteers. 

Section 3 also extends the VPA’s protection to volunteer pilot organizations as entities that will uniquely enjoy the liability protections of the VPA when they comply with the exceptions of the VPA 

that currently extend only to individual volunteers and not to organizations. Section 3 does this by amending § 14503(c) to add a new 

subsection (c)(2) that provides the unique protection for the volunteer pilot organizations. 

Section 4. Report by Attorney General 

Section 4 was added by an amendment offered by Representative 

Scott and passed by voice vote. It provides for the Attorney General 

to carry out a study on the availability of insurance to non-profit 

volunteer pilot organizations that fly for public benefit. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

SECTION 4 OF THE VOLUNTEER PROTECTION ACT OF 

1997 

SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON LIABILITY FOR VOLUNTEERS. 

(a) LIABILITY PROTECTION FOR VOLUNTEERS.—Except as provided in subsections (b) and (d), no volunteer of a nonprofit organization or governmental entity shall be liable for harm caused by an 

act or omission of the volunteer on behalf of the organization or entity if— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(4)(A) the harm was not caused by the volunteer operating 

a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or other vehicle for which the 

State requires the operator or the owner of the vehicle, craft, 

or vessel to— 

ø(A)¿ (i) possess an operator’s license; or 

ø(B)¿ (ii) maintain insuranceø.¿; or 

(B) the harm was caused by a volunteer of a nonprofit volunteer pilot organization that flies for public benefit, while the volunteer was flying in furtherance of the purpose of the organization and was operating an aircraft for which the volunteer was 

properly licensed and insured. 

* * * * * * * 

10 

(c) NO EFFECT ON LIABILITY OF ORGANIZATION OR ENTITY.—(1) 

Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the liability of 

any nonprofit organization or governmental entity with respect to 

harm caused to any person. 

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a nonprofit volunteer pilot organization that flies for public benefit, and the staff, mission coordinators, officers, and directors (whether volunteer or otherwise) of 

such organization or a referring agency of such organization, shall 

not be liable with respect to harm caused to any person by a volunteer of such organization, while the volunteer is flying in furtherance of the purpose of the organization and is operating an aircraft 

for which the volunteer is properly licensed and has certified to such 

organization that such volunteer has in force insurance for operating such aircraft. 

* * * * * * * 

MARKUP TRANSCRIPT

BUSINESS MEETING 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., [Chairman of the Committee] Presiding. 

[Intervening business.] 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Pursuant to notice, I now call up the 

bill H.R. 1084, the Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act for 

purposes of markup and move its favorable recommendation to the 

House. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and 

open for amendment at any point, and the Chair recognizes the 

gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Forbes to explain the bill. 

[The bill, H.R. 1084, follows:] 

11 


1084I1.eps
12 


1084I2.eps
13 


1084I3.eps
14 


1084I4.eps
15 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Congressman Schrock for 

his hard work on the bill before us today. 

H.R. 1084, the ‘‘Volunteer Pilot Protection Act,’’ will help promote 

the publicly beneficial activities of volunteer pilot organizations 

and their employees by exempting them from liability when flying 

volunteer missions in furtherance of the purpose of such organizations. 

Volunteer pilot organizations and the pilots who fly for them are 

involved in a range of activities, generally known as public benefit 

aviation. The activities of public benefit aviation range from environmental observation to wilderness rescue to delivery of medical 

supplies and organs to transport of medical patients. In the area 

of medical patient transport alone, every year thousands of pilots 

with years of experience and hundreds of flight hours under their 

belt volunteer their time to fly these missions. 

In 2003, volunteer pilot organizations provided long-distance 

transportation for free to over 40,000 patients and their escorts. 

These flights enabled patients to travel to remote specialized medical centers to receive lifesaving treatments and for taking clinical 

trials that they could not otherwise obtain in their own hometowns 

or even in their own regions of the country. 

Unfortunately the activities of volunteer pilots and volunteer 

pilot organizations are not protected from liability by the Volunteer 

Protection Act. And these organizations and the pilots who fly them 

face difficulty obtaining the necessary insurance because of liability 

exposure fears. 

In addition, hospitals and other medical establishments are leery 

of referring patients to volunteer pilot medical transport services 

because of their own fear of liability exposure based on the mere 

recommendation of these services. 

The Committee conducted a legislative hearing on H.R. 1084 and 

other bills on July 20, 2004. Mr. Boyer, who was the CEO of Mercy 

Medical Air Lift and vice chairman of Angel Flight of America, testified that the activities of volunteer pilots and volunteer pilot organizations are not protected from liability by the VPA. Therefore, 

these coordinating organizations and the pilots who fly for them 

face difficulty obtaining the necessary insurance because of liability 

exposure fears. Pilots who might otherwise volunteer using their 

own aircraft, time and insurance are reluctant to take on passengers and expose themselves to potential liability. 

When Congress passed the Volunteer Protection Act, volunteers 

operating a motor vehicle or aircraft were not given liability protection because these volunteers are required to have private insurance to operate the vehicle. When a group such as Angel Flight located in my home flight applies for insurance coverage, insurance 

companies interpret this clause in the VPA to leave charitable 

groups such as Angel Flight and all of their volunteers with no 

legal liability protection. 

This interpretation of the law has driven the insurance costs of 

these charities far higher than they can afford. The insurance that 

was available for $1,000 a year or a few years ago now costs more 

than $25,000 a year. The Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection 

Act would solve this problem by creating specific liability protection 

16 

for nonprofit volunteer pilot organizations flying for public benefit 

and their pilots. 

It does not change the effect or the impact of the VPA. It only 

adds protection for a worthwhile group. The exceptions to the general liability protections contained in the VPA would still apply— 

IE, intentional or criminal misconduct, certain State laws and respond yet superior or to licensing or risk management standards. 

The Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act will insure that 

many of these organizations can continue to fly. 

Mr. Chairman, there is a whole host of groups that support this 

legislation, including the Shriners Hospital for Children. I would 

request unanimous consent to allow the letters of support to be introduced on behalf of this legislation. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection. 

[The material referred to follows:] 

17 


NAHHH.eps
18 


COTA.eps
19 


HMR.eps
20 


NORDI.eps
21 


NFT.eps
22 


ICA.eps
23 


ACA.eps
24 


Hawk1.eps
25 


Hawk2.eps
26 


LLJAI.eps
27 


Airways.eps
28 

Mr. FORBES. Without this legislation, these organizations will be 

unable to provide their important services and the tens of thousands of people who benefit from their work will be unable to obtain the medical care they so desperately need. It is essential that 

we keep these lines of transportation to the people who need it the 

most. 

It would certainly be a tragedy if the lawsuit or the threat of a 

lawsuit were to bring down this network. This is a crisis we are 

having today. I thank the Chairman for holding this markup. I look 

forward to working with this Committee for further consideration 

of this legislation. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Who wishes to give the Democratic opening statement? Okay. 

If there is nobody who wishes to do that—without objection, all 

Members opening statements will appear in the record at this 

point. 

Are there amendments? The gentleman from Virginia has a manager’s amendment. The Chair recognizes the gentleman for purposes of offering the amendment. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, the manager’s amendment makes 

clerical—— 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the managers 

amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 1084 offered by Mr. Forbes of 

Virginia. Page 1, line 5 insert of 2004 before the closed quotation 

marks. Page 3, line 19 strike ‘‘individually.’’ page 4, line 19, strike 

‘‘individual.’’ 

[The amendment follows:] 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The manager’s amendment simply makes three technical changes to the bill to correct 

drafting errors. 


A1084B.eps
29 

First, the year in the short title was changed from 2003 to 2004. 

The other two changes made by the manager’s amendment are to 

strike the words individually and individual in two places where 

they appear before the words ‘‘insured’’ and ‘‘insurance.’’ 

This is done to correct a drafting oversight that while most aviation insurance at issue is individual to a pilot or aircraft, there are 

other forms of nonindividual insurance policies that should not be 

discriminated against for no good reason. 

I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on adoption of the 

manager’s amendment. 

The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt. 

Mr. WATT. I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. WATT. Just for the purpose of asking the same question I 

was trying to ask on the wrong bill before we recessed. 

Under this bill, the pilot would—the volunteer would certify that 

he has an operating license and insurance for such craft, aircraft. 

I am just trying to figure out what that insurance would normally 

consist of and whether there are exclusions and whether there are 

any exclusions in those policies that he would be certifying were in 

effect that might make it impossible for a third party to get anything if the airplane crashed, for example. 

A lot of insurance policies say we will insure you for your individual risk but not when you are engaged in any kind of third 

party or business risk. And I am just trying to get fixed in my own 

mind whether there is any kind of insurance likely to be out there 

to cover somebody if they are injured. 

I will yield to the gentleman. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I can’t tell you what insurance is out 

there or not, but let me tell you what we did have at the hearing. 

First of all, the intent of this legislation is to do exactly what the 

Volunteer Protection Act does for other volunteers, and just extend 

it to these volunteers on pilot associations. 

The focus of the Act, when it comes to insurance, is to make sure 

that the pilots are required to have whatever insurance the States 

require them to have. 

Mr. WATT. Will you talk into the mike? 

Mr. FORBES. The intent is that the pilots will have whatever insurance coverage the States require them to have. Same with the 

operators license. If the State requires them to have an operators 

license, they would have to have it. The type of insurance required 

by the State, they would have to have. 

The only reason for this correction on the technical correction 

with the manager’s amendment is that some of these associations 

are able to get a group coverage that they get through the association and some of them, the bulk of them, get individual pilot coverage, of course. 

The other thing that was important from the hearing to note is 

that there was not a single bit of testimony that there was any 

negligence concerns, any problems with insurance in terms of the 

kind of insurance they were carrying. 

The testimony before the Subcommittee was clearly that this was 

serving as a chilling effect to absolutely stop this service from takVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 Sep 14, 2004 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR679.XXX HR679
30 

ing place, which is providing incredible benefit to patients across 

the country. So the insurance that would be there would be the insurance that would be required by the States for these pilots. 

Mr. WATT. As far as you know, those insurance policies wouldn’t 

have any kind of exclusion that would make it impossible for a 

third party to recover, even if they were operating under these conditions? 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman. I don’t want to represent that none 

of the policies would have that, because I don’t know that. We have 

not gone through every individual policy. I would say, as the gentleman knows, these policies are going to vary from State to State. 

So there very well could be a company out there that has that exclusion in it. 

What I can say very clearly is that this will refer it back to the 

States for whatever insurance requirements that those particular 

States have currently. 

Mr. WATT. Okay. Mr. Chairman. Would you have any more information about the question in response to that? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. If the gentleman will yield, the answer is no. 

Mr. WATT. All right. I am not trying to pin anybody down. I am 

just trying to find out whether there might be some unintended 

consequences. 

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. WATT. Yes, I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. CARTER. As I recall from the hearing that we held, I believe 

that pilot air liability insurance, they would still have to carry that. 

This is to prevent them from being sued when they are flying a patient, and the patient gets to the location and either dies or gets 

more ill than he was before he left the destination. They are getting sued for the condition of the patient that they are transporting. 

Mr. WATT. Oh, I see what you are saying. 

Mr. CARTER. Not for any pilot error. The pilot may have flown 

there effectively, gotten there on time or been delayed by weather, 

whatever the reason. But they ended up being sued because the patient gets sicker or dies. They are wanting—they are having to 

carry a load of additional insurance, as I understand, to cover these 

patients that they are hauling in these airplanes. 

They would still have to have pilot liability if the pilot made an 

error, they would have to have the insurance that is required by 

the State to maintain pilot error insurance. That is what I understood from a question that I asked at the hearing. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. I yield back the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you very much for your comments. If I remember the testimony from this, if there is an allegation of ignorance— 

the victim would have recourse. 

Mr. FORBES. That is correct. The victim would have recourse to 

any insurance that would be available and that could include insurance that the organization has or insurance that the individual 

pilot has. 

31 

Mr. SCOTT. And so the pilot would be covered for negligence in 

operating the aircraft—and that is what the insurance would be 

for—and a victim would have access to that liability policy so that 

we would not be leaving victims without any resource? 

Mr. FORBES. That is correct. 

Mr. SCOTT. The volunteer organization, however, that put the 

people together would not be part of the lawsuit because of the bill? 

Mr. FORBES. Both the volunteer organization, and also—as you 

recall from the hearing—the referring agencies were having a difficult time. Hospitals who simply wanted to make patients aware 

of these organizations were very concerned that they would have 

suits coming against them as well, and this is designed to protect 

them. 

Mr. SCOTT. And, again, reclaiming my time. 

A victim of ordinary negligence would be covered by the insurance policy covering the airplane? 

Mr. FORBES. Would continue to be covered. 

Mr. SCOTT. I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on agreeing to the 

manager’s amendment. 

Those in favor say aye. 

Aye. 

Opposed, no. 

The ayes appear to have it. The manager’s amendment is agreed 

to. 

Are there any further amendments. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I have the amendment at the desk. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment H.R. 1084 offered by Mr. Scott. 

At the end of the bill, insert the following new section: 

Section 4, report by Attorney General. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the amendment is 

considered as read. 

[The amendment follows:] 

32 


A1084A1.eps
33 


A1084A2.eps
34 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 

Scott, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, we have heard from the organizations 

that this insurance patiently is not available. We are asking the attorney general to determine whether or not—and this can’t be the 

only situation where insurance of this kind is desired and difficult 

to find. We would like to have a study to find out exactly why they 

are not getting insurance and why it is not available. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the 

Chairman of the Subcommittee is willing to accept this amendment, and I don’t have any objection to it. 

Mr. SCOTT. I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on agreeing to the 

amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. 

Those in favor will say aye. 

Aye. 

Opposed no. 

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. The amendment 

is agreed to. Are there further amendments? If there are no further 

amendments, a reporting quorum is present. 

The question occurs on the motion to report the bill H.R. 1084 

favorably as amended. 

All in favor will say aye. 

Aye. 

Opposed, no. 

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. 

The motion to report favorably is agreed to. 

Without objection, the bill will be reported favorably to the 

House in the form of a single amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating the amendments adopted here today. Without 

objection the Chairman is authorized to go to conference pursuant 

to House rules. Without objection, the staff is directed to make any 

technical and conforming changes, and all Members will be given 

2 days as provided by House rules in which to submit additional 

dissenting, supplemental or minority views. 

(35) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

H.R. 1084, the ‘‘Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act’’ is 

the product of overreaching by the Majority. It is a response to a 

hypothetical problem and does nothing but let insurance companies 

off the hook while potentially harming innocent victims. And it flies 

in the face of the Volunteer Protection Act, a bill Congress passed 

into law after eight years of debate extending over five Congresses. 

The Volunteer Protection Act was carefully deliberated and negotiated, and this bill wipes that slate clean and acts as if the Volunteer Protection Act never existed. 

We oppose this bill for several reasons. First, it undoes the balance achieved in the Volunteer Protection Act by specifically exempting pilots and aircraft carriers from liability. Second, it not 

only applies to pilots, but also to staff, mission coordinators, officers and directors of volunteer pilot organizations, and referring 

agencies, whether for profit or not-for-profit. Third, it would leave 

innocent victims without recourse in some situations by reducing 

the standard of care applicable to pilots. H.R. 1084 also does nothing to tackle the real problem, which is the insurance industry’s 

failure to offer insurance to the volunteer pilot organizations. Finally, the bill is poorly drafted and includes loopholes that would 

insulate international terrorist organizations from liability and 

subjects innocent bystanders to harm without any recourse. 

DESCRIPTION OF LEGISLATION

Section 2 of the bill, the ‘‘Findings and Purpose’’ section, contains 

four findings describing the benefits and services provided by nonprofit volunteer pilot organizations and states that these organizations ‘‘are no longer able to reasonably purchase non-owned aircraft 

liability insurance to provide liability protection, and thus face a 

highly detrimental liability risk.’’ 

Section 3 of the bill amends the Volunteer Protection Act to provide a liability exemption when the harm was caused by a volunteer of a non-profit volunteer pilot organization. Section 3 also 

carves out liability protection for the nonprofit volunteer pilot organization, the staff, mission coordinates, officers, directors, and referring agencies. 

BACKGROUND ON THE VOLUNTEER PROTECTION ACT OF 1997

The Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 was passed in an effort to 

help increase volunteerism because of a fear that people were deterred by the potential for personal liability. Specifically, the Act 

limited the liability of volunteers who are: (1) acting within the 

scope of their responsibilities; (2) properly licensed, certified, or authorized to act; (3) not causing harm by willful or criminal conduct, 

gross negligence, reckless misconduct, or a conscious, flagrant indifference to the rights or safety of the individual; and (4) not causing 

36 

1 42 U.S.C. § 14053 (2003). 

2 42 U.S.C. § 14053 (2003). 

harm while operating a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or other vehicle for which the State requires the operator to possess a license 

or to maintain insurance.1

In addition, the Act eliminates joint and several liability for noneconomic damages with respect to volunteers and limits awards of 

punitive damages against volunteers by requiring the plaintiff to 

establish ‘‘by clear and convincing evidence that the harm was 

proximately caused by an action of such volunteer which constitutes willful or criminal misconduct, or a conscious, flagrant indifference to the rights or safety of the individual harmed.’’ 

The Act preempts inconsistent state laws except to the extent 

that such laws provide additional protection from liability to volunteers. Moreover, the legislation specifically provides that it would 

not preempt a State law that (1) requires a nonprofit organization 

or governmental entity to adhere to risk management procedures, 

including mandatory training of volunteers; (2) makes the organization or entity liable for the acts or omissions of its volunteers to 

the same extent that an employer is liable for the acts or omissions 

of its employees (i.e. respondent superior); (3) makes a limitation 

of liability inapplicable only if the nonprofit organization or governmental entity provides financial secure source of recovery for individuals who suffer harm as a result of actions taken by a volunteer 

on behalf of the organization or entity. The act also allows States 

to enact statutes voiding the new federal legal limitations, but only 

to the extent all of the parties to a particular action are citizens 

of the State. 

CONCERNS WITH H.R. 1084

A. H.R. 1084 undoes the balance achieved by the Volunteer Protection Act 

As noted above, the Volunteer Protection Act specifically excludes 

harm caused while ‘‘operating a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or 

other vehicle for which the State requires the operator to possess 

a license or to maintain insurance.’’ 2 Unfortunately, H.R. 1084 

completely undoes this decision. Volunteers operating aircrafts or 

motor vehicles were exempted from liability protection under the 

Act because of the concern that in highly dangerous activities (such 

as flying airplanes), States have made it clear that they intend to 

hold individuals responsible for the consequences of their negligence by mandating insurance. Congress obviously chose to trust 

States’ judgement in these cases. Similarly, because most individuals who fly already have insurance, Congress may not have 

viewed liability protection for airplane pilots as an incentive to volunteer. 

In addition, Congress was also concerned that if it extended liability protection to volunteer operators of airplanes and automobiles, these organizations would not be able to provide a financially secure source of recovery for individuals who suffer harm as 

a result of actions taken by a volunteer on behalf of an organization or entity. Indeed, the Volunteer Protection Act does not preempt state legislation that provides for such protection. Thus, ConVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 Sep 14, 2004 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR679.XXX HR679
37 

3Sec. 4(c) (‘‘Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the liability of any nonprofit 

organization or governmental entity with respect to harm caused to any person.’’) 4 Increasing Volunteers by Reducing Legal Fears: Hearings on H.R. 1084, H.R. 3369, and H.R. 

1787, Before the Comm. on the Judiciary, 108th Cong. (statement of Andrew F. Popper, Professor, American University, Washington College of Law (July 20, 2004). 5 Brooks v. United States, 695 F.2d 984 (5th Cir. 1983). Owners sued in tort for property loss 

arising when an aircraft was badly damaged in a runway landing accident. The court noted that 

under Texas law, liability growing out of aircraft accidents is determined by ordinary rules of 

negligence. 6Dyer v. United States. 551 F. Supp. 1266 (W.D. Mich. 1982), applying federal and Michigan 

law. 

gress exempted operators of airplanes from liability protection because they feared with the high rates of accidents involving airplanes, there was a potential that innocent victims could go uncompensated if volunteers did not posses insurance. 

B. H.R. 1084 goes well beyond protecting volunteers 

The 1997 Act excuses volunteers from negligence but holds organizations accountable if they act irresponsibly.3 By contrast, H.R. 

1084 protects not just the volunteer, but also the staff, mission coordinator, officer, or director (whether volunteer or not) of the nonprofit organization. It also extends the protection to any referring 

agency (whether for-profit or non-profit). This provision is designed 

to protect the matching programs that bring together volunteer pilots. 

As Professor Andrew Popper explained in his testimony before 

the Committee: 

H.R. 1084 undercuts a fundamental premise of exiting 

[sic] federal law, the 1997 Volunteer Protection Act. That 

legislation immunized negligent coaches, lawyers and doctors engaged in malpractice, and others who have trusting 

contact with vulnerable populations, on the premise that 

victims of such misconduct would still have recourse 

against the organizations who sponsored the immunized 

defendant-volunteers. If this bill passes, that protection 

will vanish. Under this bill, the pilots, as well as their organizations and sponsoring entities, would all be immunized. In short, those who are in need of emergency air 

service and must rely on volunteers would be in the hands 

of individuals and organizations who are unaccountable for 

negligent acts.4

C. H.R. 1084 reduces the standard of care for pilots 

Finally, H.R. 1084 alters the standard of care normally applied 

to pilots. Under current law, owners and operators of private aircraft must exercise ordinary care, or reasonable care under the circumstances.5 However, a number of courts have held that operators 

of private aircraft must exercise the highest degree of care. Indeed, 

one court reasoned that the nature of the conveyance and the great 

danger involved required the utmost practical care and prudence 

for the safety of passengers, and that the defendant was bound to 

exercise the highest degree of human care, caution, and judgement 

consistent with the practical operation of the plane. No lesser degree of care and prudence would be adequate under the circumstances or commensurate with the danger involved.6

38 

7 42 U.S.C. § 14503. 

8 Increasing Volunteers by Reducing Legal Fears: Hearings on H.R. 1084, H.R. 3369, and H.R. 

1787, Before the Comm. on the Judiciary, 108th Cong. (statement of Edward R. Boyer) (July 

20, 2004.) 

Under H.R. 1084 by contrast, a volunteer pilot could only be held 

liable if harm was caused by ‘‘willful or criminal misconduct, gross 

negligence, reckless misconduct, or a conscious, flagrant indifference to the rights or safety of the individual harmed by the volunteer.’’ 7 Thus, the standard of care would be uniformly altered for 

all pilots, regardless of their type of license, that are permitted to 

fly for a non-profit organization. 

D. H.R. 1084 ignores the problem of inadequate insurance coverage 

The real problem facing the nonprofit volunteer pilot organization community is that these organizations cannot obtain insurance. This was the point of Edward Boyer’s testimony at the hearing on this bill: ‘‘[A]viation insurance has skyrocketed up in price 

and certain key products are no longer reasonably available to volunteer pilot organizations. * * * Now virtually all volunteer pilot 

organizations have no non-owned aircraft liability insurance.’’ 8

At the markup of this bill, Rep. Scott offered an amendment that 

directs the Attorney General to conduct a study to determine the 

insurance situation. The study will include an analysis of whether 

or not insurance is available to these nonprofit volunteer pilot organizations, and if not, then why. If insurance is available, the study 

will determine if it is made available on reasonable terms. Finally, 

the study will determine if there is collusion among insurance companies not to offer insurance, and the extent to which the inability 

to obtain insurance has affected these organizations’ ability to operate. 

The study is a good first step in figuring out the problem, but 

it should have been conducted before Congress decided to pass a 

bill limiting liability for all volunteers and organizations in the industry and diminishing the chances of holding anyone accountable 

when harm occurs. 

E. Legislation is poorly drafted 

As usual when it comes to ‘‘tort reform’’ proposals by the majority, this bill was poorly and hastily drafted and leaves all kinds of 

loopholes. For example, the bill does not address the situation of 

an innocent bystander who may be harmed by a volunteer pilot. 

While the bill attempts to address the situation between the pilots, 

the organizations, and the person in need of transport, it clearly 

does not contemplate the situation of someone outside the relationship, such as an innocent bystander. This is simply poor and 

thoughtless drafting. 

Even more egregious, this poor drafting leaves a loophole for acts 

of domestic terrorism. Thus, if a pilot flying for a nonprofit volunteer pilot organization commits an act of domestic terrorism with 

an airplane, the organization will completely escape liability for the 

harm caused by such an act. This is simply irresponsible. 

39 

CONCLUSION

H.R. 1084 is overbroad and unnecessary. There have been no reported civil liability cases against a volunteer pilot or a volunteer 

pilot organization. In addition, 43 States have already passed legislation relating to volunteer liability; some States have included or 

separately passed protections for non-profit organizations. There is 

no need to preempt State laws in this case. 

JOHN CONYERS, Jr. 

MAXINE WATERS. TAMMY BALDWIN. HOWARD L. BERMAN. JERROLD NADLER. SHEILA JACKSON LEE. 

ROBERT WEXLER. 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ. 

Æ