Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Works Claims topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Harrison County supervisors approve one vehicle-damage claim, deny two; direct clearer notice and claim form
Summary
The board heard multiple claims that county mowing and weed-eating operations flung rocks that damaged vehicle glass and a car condenser. After hearing witnesses and staff, supervisors approved one claim, denied two others and directed staff to revise public notice and the county claim form to explain the negligence standard.
Harrison County Board of Supervisors approved payment on one vehicle-damage claim linked to county right-of-way mowing, denied two other claims and asked staff to revise how the county notifies the public and how claimants are instructed when they file.
The board heard from three claimants and representatives: Gail Covington described a broken driver-side window after a mower/weed-eating crew worked along Canal Road; Jose Cruz spoke for Florentina Garcia about a chipped windshield estimated at $395; and Donna McArthur described damage to her vehicle condenser after equipment passed on Bells Ferry Road with repair costs cited at $718.90.
Board members and staff repeatedly said state law requires claimants to show county negligence before the county can pay. County staff and the district safety officer said work-zone signage — including “Mowers ahead; proceed at your own risk” — was present for at least some of the incidents. Caroline, the county safety officer, told the board she had personally responded to rock reports and said the location on Canal Road has recurring reports of gravel and rock hazards where crews use weed-eaters.
After discussion, the board voted to approve payment for Covington’s claim based on the safety officer’s report and because staff said the site showed repeated similar incidents. The board voted to deny Garcia’s claim (the board noted the damage was a chip and evidence did not show negligence or that timely repair was attempted) and denied McArthur’s claim (members said the record did not establish county negligence nor the causal link required by state law).
Supervisors also raised several operational changes: they asked county staff to add a clear notice for people who call about property damage explaining that the county will only pay where negligence is shown, to include a citation or reference to the governing statute on the claim form, and to improve work-zone signage (for example adding language like “Choose alternate route — rocks may fly”). Staff said they would draft a revised claim form and related instructions and attempt to have a version ready by Wednesday of the same week for circulation to the road department.
Board members also discussed operational mitigations: having crews avoid weed-eating where gravel is obvious; using a crew to stop traffic during high-risk operations; and inspecting problem stretches more frequently. Several supervisors emphasized these steps are intended to reduce repeat incidents rather than to change the county’s legal standard for claims.
The board’s actions were taken in open session and reflected motions and seconding recorded on the meeting minutes. No litigation action was decided; supervisors confined their action to approving or denying the individual claims and directing staff on notice and signage changes.
