AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39 and Title 55, relative to criminal offenses involving driving.
Summary
HB0359 amends Tennessee criminal law governing offenses involving driving by changing the statutory definition of “serious bodily injury” in Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-13-106. The bill adds a new subsection stating that, for purposes of that section, serious bodily injury includes injuries involving a substantial risk of death, protracted unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, protracted or obvious disfigurement, protracted loss or substantial impairment of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty, or a broken bone.
The practical effect is to clarify and potentially broaden the injuries that can satisfy the serious bodily injury element in driving-related criminal cases. Because the bill amends Title 39 and is tied to driving offenses, it affects how prosecutors, courts, and defendants evaluate charges where injury severity is an element or aggravating factor. The act takes effect July 1, 2026.
Impact
This bill changes Tennessee’s criminal code definition of “serious bodily injury” for purposes of § 39-13-106, which can affect charging, proof, and sentencing in driving-related offenses that depend on the seriousness of injury. By expressly including broken bones and other specified harms, it provides clearer statutory guidance to law enforcement, prosecutors, defense counsel, and courts applying the statute.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have broad overall support. It advanced through the House Transportation Subcommittee and Committee with favorable recommendations, then passed the House Finance, Ways, and Means process unanimously in committee and by large margins on the floor, indicating general agreement with the need to clarify the injury standard in driving-related criminal law.
Contention
The limited opposition appears to have centered on whether the definition of serious bodily injury should be expanded or clarified in this way, with a small number of no votes at the subcommittee and floor stages. No committee transcript is available, so the record does not show detailed arguments, but the votes suggest that most members supported the change while a minority may have had concerns about the scope of criminal liability or the consequences of including broken bones in the definition.