Infrastructure Expansion Act of 2025
HB3548, titled the Infrastructure Expansion Act of 2025, would limit the use of absolute liability claims in certain lawsuits tied to infrastructure and transportation projects that receive federal support. The bill applies to projects receiving federal financial assistance, federal tax incentives, or subject to federal permitting requirements, and it bars actions based on absolute liability for injuries involving elevation- or gravity-related risks. Instead, it requires a comparative negligence standard for covered claims where state law would otherwise impose absolute liability.
The bill defines covered projects broadly to include construction, repair, demolition, and related work on highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, railways, stations, harbors, parks, buildings, utilities, and associated private developments required for permitting or public-asset modifications. It also defines covered persons broadly to include workers and others affiliated with the project. The measure expressly preserves state workers’ compensation laws, and it would apply only to claims arising from projects in which state or local governments accept federal financial assistance on or after January 1, 2026.
If enacted, the bill would preempt state laws that impose absolute liability standards for elevation- or gravity-related risks on covered infrastructure and transportation projects, replacing them with a comparative negligence framework for those claims. It would also place claims arising under the act in exclusive federal court jurisdiction, limiting the role of state courts in applying contrary liability rules. The bill would affect property owners, contractors, subcontractors, project affiliates, and injured workers or other covered persons involved in federally supported construction and infrastructure work, while leaving workers’ compensation systems intact.
There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided material, so no direct public sentiment can be measured from debate or roll call. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed to be pro-development and pro-construction by reducing exposure to strict or absolute liability in federally supported projects. The absence of recorded opposition or support in the available context means sentiment must be inferred cautiously from the bill’s structure and purpose.
The main point of contention is likely to be the bill’s preemption of state tort law and its shift away from absolute liability toward comparative negligence. Supporters would likely argue that the change reduces litigation risk, lowers project costs, and encourages infrastructure investment, while opponents may argue that it weakens protections for injured workers and others on hazardous job sites. Another likely issue is the bill’s broad reach, including federal tax incentives and permitting requirements, and its assignment of exclusive federal jurisdiction, which could be seen as limiting state authority over workplace injury claims.