Youngstown Daily Legal News

Motorists driving on flooded roads could be punished under new bill

TIFFANY L. PARKS
Special to the Legal News
Published: June 24, 2013

Senate Bill 106, a measure supported by the Emergency Management Association of Ohio and the Ohio Fire Chiefs Association, would prohibit a person from driving on a roadway that is temporarily covered in rising water and is clearly marked as being closed.

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Tim Schaffer, R-Lancaster, testified before the Senate Transportation committee last Tuesday.

“In 2006 during a rainstorm in Wellington Township, Lorain County, a teenage driver ignored a ‘Road Closed’ sign that was placed on a bridge covered in rising water. He proceeded to cross the bridge and quickly became stranded due to rising water.”

Shortly afterward, Schaffer said the local fire department arrived on the scene and attempted to rescue the stranded driver and his passenger.

“The gentleman who was tasked with saving the driver was Allan ‘Buz’ Anderson who had 15 years of diving and swift water rescue experience,” he said.

According to the Wellington Fire District’s website, the initial attempt to save the two teens was unsuccessful.

“During a second attempt to reach the juveniles ... Anderson entered the water, attached to a safety line. Water conditions rapidly deteriorated and he was overcome by the water current. At that point, the diver was extricated by rescue personnel using his attached safety line,” the site read.

“While Anderson was being removed, additional personnel successfully reached the two victims and removed them safely from the water.”

The website went on to say that after Anderson was removed from the water, he received medical care from fire and EMS personnel and was transported by Lifeflight to Cleveland Metro Hospital.

“Resuscitation efforts at the hospital were unsuccessful,” Wellington fire officials wrote.

Anderson, a 47-year-old husband and father of four sons, had served on his district’s dive rescue team for four years.

In addition to talking about the situation surrounding Anderson’s death, Schaffer offered lawmakers a list of a dozen water rescue incidents in Wellington Township since 2004.

“Unfortunately, this situation occurs all too frequently around the state of Ohio,” he said. “The goal of SB 106 is to discourage drivers from disobeying ‘Road Closed’ and ‘Flooded Road’ signs and needlessly putting rescuers in harm’s way.”

According to a bill analysis, the proposed legislation would prohibit operating a vehicle on or onto a public street or highway that is temporarily covered by a rise in water level, including groundwater or an overflow of water, if the street or highway is clearly marked as being closed due to the rise in water level.

A violation of this offense would be a minor misdemeanor.

“However, a person who is issued a citation for this is not permitted to enter a written plea of guilty and waive the person’s right to contest the citation in court, but instead must appear in person in the proper court to answer the charge,” the analysis states.

If signed into law, SB 106 would require a court imposing sentence on an offender to order the offender to reimburse rescuers for costs incurred in rescuing the person, up to a cumulative maximum of $2,000.

“If more than one rescuer was involved in the emergency response, the court must allocate the reimbursement proportionately, according to the cost each rescuer incurred,” the analysis states.

Under the bill, rescuers who may recover their costs include a state agency, political subdivision, firefighting agency, private fire company or emergency medical service organization.

SB 106 states that transporting a rescued person to a hospital or other facility for treatment of injuries is not a recoverable cost.

“The prospect of a significant fine would hopefully discourage this reckless activity and allow our local fire departments to recoup the cost of the rescue,” Schaffer said.

“Although it is too late to save Mr. Anderson’s life it is my hope that by passing this legislation we can save the lives of countless other firefighters and rescue divers.”

The bill states that the court-ordered reimbursement of rescue costs is in addition to existing financial sanctions and other costs a court is authorized or required to impose on an offender.

A financial sanction imposed for the costs of rescuing an offender would be a judgment in favor of the rescuer and subject to a determination of indigency in the same manner as other existing financial sanctions that a court imposes.

SB 106 has not been scheduled for additional hearings.

[Back]