POLISCOPE
Back to bills
Part ofPublic Safety →

The civic record

Read. Follow. Verify.
HF 367MINNESOTASession 2025-2026State Billdead
Did Not Advance

Minnesota House Bill 367 Imposes Civil Liability and Penalties for Intentional Highway Obstruction

Original title: Action for damages for highway obstruction authorized, and civil penalties imposed.

Last action · March 3, 2025: Committee report, to adopt and re-refer to Judiciary Finance and Civil LawSponsors: Tom Murphy and 3 others

Bill progressHistory & official text ↓
Introduced
Committee
Floor Vote
Passed
Law

Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.

Public stanceCommunity reactions are separate from the official record and reporting.

What This Bill Proposed

Minnesota House Bill 367 establishes civil liability for anyone who intentionally obstructs or renders a public highway dangerous, allowing injured parties to sue for damages and legal fees starting August 1, 2025. The measure permits state agencies and political subdivisions to choose between civil actions under this statute or criminal prosecution, but prohibits pursuing both for the same incident. Emergency responders, road authorities, and utility workers performing official duties are exempt from these penalties.

Why it matters

People injured by intentional road blockages can recover financial damages and attorney fees directly from those responsible, while government entities must choose a single legal track—civil or criminal—for prosecuting the same obstruction.

Who It Would Have Affected

Groups the bill's text would have affected, as described in the record. Being affected is not a position for or against it.

Directly affected

Injured persons

Injured persons gain the legal right to sue individuals or entities for damages, attorney fees, and costs arising from intentional highway obstructions.

Directly affected

State agencies and political subdivisions

State agencies and political subdivisions must choose between filing a civil action or pursuing criminal prosecution, as they are barred from bringing both for the same conduct.

Directly affected

Emergency responders and utility officials

Law enforcement, emergency responders, road or airport authorities, and utility officials are explicitly exempt from civil liability when carrying out their duties.

Key Facts

You don't have to trust us. Each fact below is taken straight from the official document - click any one to see the exact passage, highlighted in the original.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who can be held liable under this bill?
Any individual, private entity, state agency, or political subdivision that intentionally obstructs, interferes with, or renders a public highway dangerous can be held liable.
Can a government entity pursue both civil and criminal charges for the same highway obstruction?
No. State agencies and political subdivisions must elect their remedy by commencing either a civil action under this new statute or a criminal prosecution under section 609.74, clause (2), and are precluded from bringing both.
Are emergency workers or utility crews subject to these civil penalties?
No. Law enforcement, emergency responders, road or airport authorities, and utility officials or their agents and contractors are exempt when carrying out duties imposed by law or contract.

What else do you want to know?

News Coverage

No news coverage found yet. Articles are indexed twice daily.

Follow the record

Votes, people, money & the original source

Where This Stands

This bill did not become law - Died at adjournment · in House committee.

Procedural history

4 actions
  1. Mar 3, 2025HouseCommittee
    Committee report, to adopt and re-refer to Judiciary Finance and Civil Law
  2. Feb 26, 2025House
    Author added Knudsen
  3. Feb 19, 2025HouseCommittee
    Motion to recall and re-refer, motion prevailed Transportation Finance and Policy
  4. Feb 13, 2025HouseIntroduced
    Introduction and first reading, referred to Public Safety Finance and Policy

Version history

Only one version on file - nothing to compare yet. As later stages (committee substitute, engrossed, enrolled) are captured, the redline appears here.

View official text →

Lobbying Activity

No state lobbying filings in our records match this bill. Federal lobbying reports (LDA) cover Congress, so they are not listed on state bills.

Full breakdown

Who this bill affects and the strongest case for and against it, written only from the bill’s own text.

Sponsors

Tom MurphyHouse · District 9BRepublicanPrimary sponsor
Steve GanderHouse · District 1BRepublicanCosponsor
Keith AllenHouse · District 19ARepublicanCosponsor
Krista KnudsenHouse · District 5ARepublicanCosponsor

Connected Entities

Centennial Office Building, Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes, House and 5 more
OrganizationCentennial Office Building“Building housing the Revisor of Statutes”Map →
OrganizationMinnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes“State office located at Centennial Office Building”Map →
OrganizationHouse“Minnesota House of Representatives”Map →
OrganizationSenate“Minnesota Senate”Map →
other55155“Postal zip code”Map →
OrganizationMinnesota Legislature“Legislative body considering HF 367”Map →
locationSt. Paul“City where the Centennial Office Building is located”Map →
locationMN“State abbreviation for Minnesota”Map →

Sources

Open source document

www.revisor.mn.gov

Analysis Score

0–100
  • Significance20
    Lowered because this bill did not pass (its text scored 60)
  • Controversy75
    Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
  • Entertainment10
    Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
  • Buzz40
    Current news / social attention level

Publisher tools

Share or embed this record

POLISCOPE publisher tools

Share or embed this record