House Bill 1169 would make it unlawful to operate a motor vehicle on a public street, highway, or public vehicular area while holding a live animal in the driver’s lap. The bill creates a new traffic infraction for this conduct and sets the penalty at a $100 fine plus court costs. It also specifies that no driver’s license points or insurance surcharge would result from a violation.
The bill further states that a violation would not count as negligence per se or contributory negligence per se in civil lawsuits arising from vehicle operation, ownership, or maintenance. In addition, it appropriates $50,000 in nonrecurring General Fund money to the Department of Transportation for a public awareness campaign about the new rule, with that funding effective July 1, 2026. The offense provisions would take effect December 1, 2026, and apply only to offenses committed on or after that date.
HB1169 would amend Chapter 20 of the North Carolina General Statutes by adding a new traffic safety offense in Part 10 of Article 3, creating a specific prohibition on driving while holding a live animal in the lap. It would affect motorists statewide, law enforcement, courts handling infractions, and insurers indirectly by barring points and insurance surcharges. The bill also limits civil-liability consequences by preventing the conduct from being treated as negligence per se or contributory negligence per se, and it adds a one-time appropriation to DOT for public education.
The available record shows no committee transcript, vote tally, or recorded floor debate, so there is no documented partisan or stakeholder sentiment in the materials provided. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears framed as a straightforward roadway safety proposal with a modest civil penalty and a public-awareness component rather than a major regulatory change. Its limited penalty structure and delayed effective date suggest an effort to present the bill as a narrow, public-safety-oriented rule.
The main policy issue likely to draw attention is whether the state should regulate a relatively specific driving behavior and whether the $100 infraction is an appropriate deterrent. Another possible point of contention is the bill’s civil-liability language, which expressly prevents violations from being used as negligence per se or contributory negligence per se in damages actions. The appropriation for a DOT awareness campaign could also be questioned as an added expenditure for a narrowly targeted traffic rule, though no recorded opposition or support is included in the provided history.