Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Claims And Liability topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Harrison County supervisors decline claim after fire truck collapses septic tank

2172132 · January 1, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Board of Supervisors voted to deny a resident’s claim for $1,200 in septic‑tank repairs after a county fire truck backed into a yard and collapsed an old tank lid. County attorneys said state tort‑claim limits prevent payment absent a finding of ‘reckless disregard.’

Harrison County supervisors voted to deny a claim for $1,200 from a resident who said a county fire truck damaged her septic tank while first responders accessed her property.

The denial came after Kathleen Shaffer described to the board how a fire truck backed onto a yard, broke the septic lid and the truck fell into the tank. Shaffer said the home has an older, approved septic system and that the truck’s path clearly crossed grass that was not part of the driveway.

County staff told the board they had investigated and prepared a report. A county attorney explained that under the state tort‑claims framework the board lacks authority to pay ordinary negligence claims unless it finds a level of conduct rising to “reckless disregard,” which the attorney described as a willful, intentional act. Staff said the vehicle backed up to clear space for an ambulance and did not see the covered tank; they characterized the incident as an accident.

After discussion the board moved and carried a motion that the county will not pay the claim. The chair said the board “cannot pay” because it must follow the statutory standard that limits payments, and the motion carried on a voice vote with no roll‑call tally provided.

Shaffer told supervisors she could pay the repairs herself if necessary but had brought the matter to the board after filing the report. The board did not direct staff to reopen or escalate the claim; no further action was announced.

The board’s discussion emphasized the statutory constraint rather than the facts of the accident. The transcript record does not show a vote tally by name.