Require that the owner of a motor vehicle removed from a body of water pay the removal costs.
Summary
SB 202 amends South Dakota law governing civil liability for towing and removal costs when a motor vehicle is abandoned or ends up in a body of water. Under the bill, an owner who intentionally abandons a vehicle on a public highway or right-of-way remains liable for towing costs, and the bill expressly extends that liability to situations where the owner drives, or allows the vehicle to be driven, into a lake, stream, or other body of water, including frozen bodies of water where the vehicle breaks through the ice and becomes disabled.
The bill also makes the owner civilly liable for any storage expense associated with the removal, tying those costs to existing storage provisions in state law. In practical terms, the measure shifts the financial burden of recovery and storage from the removal agency or public entity to the vehicle owner in the specified circumstances, and it clarifies that water-related recoveries are treated similarly to roadside abandonment for cost-recovery purposes.
Impact
SB 202 would amend § 32-30-18.1 of the South Dakota Codified Laws and expand the statute’s cost-recovery rules to cover vehicles removed from lakes, streams, and other bodies of water, including frozen water bodies. It would also reinforce the owner’s liability for storage expenses under § 32-36-8. The bill affects vehicle owners, towing and recovery operators, and any public or private removal agency that responds to submerged or ice-breakthrough vehicle incidents.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests limited opposition and general procedural support, with two recorded 6-0 tabled votes and no committee transcript indicating controversy. The absence of recorded dissent or substantive debate points to a relatively noncontroversial bill focused on allocating cleanup and recovery costs to the responsible vehicle owner.
Contention
The main policy issue is whether owners should bear the full cost of removing and storing vehicles recovered from bodies of water, including situations involving accidental submersion or ice break-through. Supporters would likely view the bill as a straightforward fairness and cost-recovery measure, while any concern would center on whether the liability language is too broad for cases where the vehicle was not intentionally abandoned but was nevertheless driven into water. No specific stakeholder objections are documented in the provided materials.