Yes, I have just a quick comment.
The first thing that strikes me is that this actually assumes negligence and forces the operator, if an incident takes place, to prove it is not negligent. I don't think we can assume negligence. The other point of the bill, its basic principle, is that the operator is absolutely liable for damages. That's the point of the entire bill, and I would say that this works against the basic principle of the bill and against the purpose of the act as it stands.
So we have to oppose this. I appreciate Mr. Cullen's efforts here; however, the amendment works against the basic principle of the bill.