Legislative Analysis

H.B. 821
By: Giddings
Public Education
Enrolled

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The American Heart Association estimates that each day more than 95 percent of Americans who suffer sudden cardiac arrest die before reaching the hospital. Additionally, at least 50,000 lives could be saved each year if the national sudden cardiac arrest survival rate could be increased from five percent to 20 percent or higher. One course of action that might increase survival rates is the chain of survival, a four-step process of providing treatment to victims of sudden cardiac arrest which includes administering cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). More lives could potentially be saved if more people were skilled in CPR. House Bill 821 requires each school district in Texas to provide CPR instruction to its students to the extent that donations from the Texas Education Agency and other donations are available.

RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

It is the opinion of this office that rulemaking authority is expressly delegated to the commissioner of education in SECTION 1 (Section 7.025, Education Code) and SECTION 2 (Section 29.903, Education Code) of this bill.

ANALYSIS

House Bill 821 amends the Education Code to require each school district to provide to CPR instruction to students to the extent that donations from the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and other donations, including equipment, are available to the district for that purpose. The bill authorizes TEA to accept donations, including equipment, for use in providing CPR instruction to students and requires TEA to distribute the donations to districts that provide the instruction. TEA is authorized to use a portion of the donations to pay administrative expenses related to the donations. H.B. 821 authorizes the commissioner of education to adopt rules as necessary to implement the provisions of this bill.

EFFECTIVE DATE

June 14, 2001.

Brief

Jacob & Youngs v. Kent
Court of Appeals of New York, 1921

FACTS: Defendant, Kent, contracted with plaintiff, Jacob & Youngs to build defendant a home. Defendant specified that when constructing the plumbing, plaintiff use galvanized, wrought-iron pipe of the Reading brand. Plaintiff did not use the Reading brand pipe, but the pipe plaintiff used was commensurate in quality. Upon finding out of the substitution, defendant requested to do the job over again using the Reading pipe; plaintiff refused, as this would have resulted in great expense to the plaintiff. Defendant refused to pay the complete cost of the construction.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Plaintiff filed suit in trial court to recover the unpaid balance. Trial court found for the defendant. During the initial trial, the plaintiff was not permitted to introduce evidence proving that the pipe plaintiff used was the same quality as the Reading brand. Plaintiff appealed to the intermediate state court, and the trial court’s decision was reversed. Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York in 1921.

ISSUE: Whether a party to a construction contract who stipulates that materials used must be of a certain brand is entitled to damages if a contractor substitutes material that is the same in quality but different in brand.

HOLDING: A party to a construction contract who stipulates that materials used must be of a certain brand is not entitled to damages if a contractor substitutes material that is the same in quality but different in brand.

JUDGMENT: The Court of Appeals of New York affirmed the decision of the intermediate trial court in favor of the plaintiff.

REASONING: The plaintiff did not act fraudulently or willfully in using an alternate pipe. Because the pipe was of a commensurate quality to the Reading brand requested - evidence that the court concluded should have been admitted at the first trial - there was little or no damage to defendant.