Liability of Transportation Entity for the Unintentional Release of Secure Data or the Intentional Release of Monitoring Data on Movements or Activities of the Public (2016) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 43-48
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 43... ...
43 state legislature has waived immunity, as well as on the courts' interpretation of the applicable legislation.592 It is important to note that in states where a tort claims act permits a plaintiff to sue a public entity in tort, the legislation may have specific exceptions, exemptions, or exclusions to liability. In its response to the survey, the Florida DOT cited its state's statute on sovereign immunity in which the State of Florida for itself and its agencies and subdivisions "waives sovereign immunity for liability for torts, but only to the extent specified in this act."593 The Illinois Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Immunity Act has "an extensive list of immunities based on specific governmental functions."594 As observed by the North Carolina court in Turner v.
|
From page 44... ...
44 Whether a governmental decision is discretionary and entitled to immunity is a question of law decided by the court.602 In Axtell v University of Texas,603 a Texas appellate court held that the disclosure by a state agency of confidential information was not actionable because the state had retained its immunity under the state tort claims act. In Axtell, a student sued a state university and its employees for sending the student's educational records by a telefax machine to a local radio station without the student's consent.604 The trial court dismissed the action because of the university's immunity as a state institution.
|
From page 45... ...
45 B Claims Against Transportation Agencies Arising Out of the Disclosure of Secure Data or Monitoring Data 1.
|
From page 46... ...
46 and in good faith believed" that it was complying with the statute.629 Other statutory provisions cited by the transportation agencies authorize the recovery of attorney's fees under the state's FOIA or provided that a violation of the FOIA constituted a misdemeanor. For example, the Arkansas FOIA permits an "action to enforce the rights granted by this chapter" and further allows for the recovery of "reasonable attorney fees and other litigation expenses reasonably incurred by a plaintiff who has substantially prevailed unless the court finds that the position of the defendant was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of these expenses unjust…."630 In its response, the department referred to another provision in the state's FOIA that states that "[a]
|
From page 47... ...
47 equivalent to California's Government Claims Act, the plaintiffs could not avoid the requirement to file their claim for damages under the Government Claims Act. The court held that IPA Sections 1798.5 and 1798.48 "constitute[]
|
From page 48... ...
48 companies because they do not face the same liabilities and limitations placed [on] government agencies."658 For example, the California Public Contract Code prohibits release of proprietary information by a party contracting with a state agency.659 Although there are fewer restraints on and/or judicial scrutiny of data collected or maintained by private contractors,660 the Intelligent Transportation Society of America has issued nonbinding guidelines for its members in "an effort to self-regulate on the issue of data security and privacy protection."661 D
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.