March 10, 2026 · Transportation Committee · 1,867 words · 4 speakers · 22 segments
House Transportation Committee will come to order. The time is 333 on the 10th of March. Clerk, please call the roll. Chairman Willis. Here. Vice Chair Daniels. Here. Ranking Member Grimm. Here. Representative Blaisdell. Representative Kloffenstein. Present. Representative Lorenz. Here. Representative McLean. Representative Kevin Miller. Here. Representative Mohammed is excused. Representative Newman. Representative Pizzouli.
Representative Rogers. Here.
Representative Troy. We have a quorum. We have a quorum present and we'll continue as a full committee today. The minutes from the prior committee are on your iPads. Please review those at this time. Any objections to the minutes? Hearing none, the minutes will be approved. All the supporting documents and testimony today can be found on your iPads also. Please, those in the committee and the gallery, please remember to silence your cell phones today so we don't interrupt the committee process. Welcome today. We will have some potential extended, well, we have a lot of bills, one, but we'll also have what I would call some very informative testimony today that we're going to have to unfortunately limit just based on the numbers. But realize that there are volumes of information on some of these bills that are extremely important. And if you look around, this is a transportation committee. Today we are talking, you know, transportation issues specifically. And again, the amount of information and data that can go along with some of those is extensive. So both for the members and for those who are either watching or want to follow along with what's going on, realize there is a multitude of different large documents that have extensive data on some of the things that we'll talk about today. So without further ado, we'll bring forward House Bill 378 for its second hearing. Representatives Kishman and Abrams have brought this bill to create the Blue Knights Law Enforcement Motorcycle Club license plate. Members, we have an amendment to consider. The chair recognizes Vice Chair Daniels for a motion.
Mr. Chairman, I vote to amend with AM 136-1233.
The amendment is in order. Please explain the amendment.
This amendment will add a $10 contribution for the Blue Knights LEMC license plate, and it requires the contribution to be paid to the Blue Knights International Law Enforcement Motorcycle Club, which must use the contributions to further the mission of their organization.
Thank you much. Is there any discussion on the amendment? The question is, shall the amendment become part of the bill? Without objection, the amendment will become part of the bill, and LSC is hereby granted permission to harmonize the bill. And that will stand as a second hearing on House Bill Now Amended, 378. Oh, sorry. That will not stand. What am I missing Oh, gotcha. Great. Seeing no other testimony or questions, what is the pleasure of the committee? Chair recognizes Vice Chair Daniels for a motion.
I move that.
Hang on a minute. I don't have it.
Do you?
Move that it's for passage?
Yeah.
Is it at the end? Yep. Okay, here we go. Thank you.
I move that House Bill 378 be favorably reported and recommended for passage.
The motion is in order. Clerk, please call the roll. Chairman Willis. Yes. Vice Chair Daniels. Yes. Ranking Member Grimm. Yes. Representative Blaisdell. Representative Klopfenstein. Yes. Representative Lorenz. Yes. Representative McLean. Representative Kevin Miller. Yes. Representative Muhammad is excused. Representative Newman. Representative Pizzouli. Representative Rogers. Yes. Representative Troy. Yes. Unanimous passage. With a unanimous vote, the bill is reported out of committee and recommended for favorable passage. Please remember to sign the report as it comes around, and the roll will be left open until 5 p.m. today for those who can't. Bear with us. It has been a long day today. If you haven't noticed, both the change in every schedule that we possibly had today and then having to wait on our actual transportation and elevators didn't help. So if we seem a little discombobulated, we are. Next up, we'll call the first hearing for House Bill 604, Representatives Matthews and Kishman, to modify the laws related to transportation network companies. Welcome to the committee, gentlemen. The floor is yours.
Chair Willis, Chair Daniels, Ranking Member Grimm, and members of the House Transportation Committee, thank you for the opportunity to present sponsor testimony on House Bill 604, which clarifies the legal framework for transportation network companies, TNCs, to clarify all their legal obligation and protections. Central to this bill, the legal concept of product liability and vicarious liability under law, unchanged by this bill, a product liability claims to seek recovered damages from a manufacturer or supplier for injury or damages resulted from design, construction, marketing of a product, any warning or lack thereof of a product, any failure of a product to conform or any relevant representation or warranty. The concept of vicarious liability, also unchanged, holds that an employer may be vicariously responsible for the wrongful acts of their employee, even though the employer was not directly at fault. House Bill 604 exempts a TNC's digital network and platform to facilitate delivery services from the product's liability law, and more importantly, it specifies that TNC are not vicariously liable for their actions of their drivers provided the TNC commits no criminal wrongdoing of its own and follows all statutory obligations already in Ohio law The core reasoning behind this bill is the distinction that unlike normal employer and employee relationships where the employer controls the actions of the employee TNC drivers are legally classified as independent contractors, ORC Chapter 4925, and TNCs do not directly control drivers' actions. TNCs have baseline legal obligations already in place to promote passenger safety, such as the requirement to conduct background checks on prospective drivers. However, once in-network drivers control which apps they use, when they work, and which trips they accept. Without a direct employer-employee method of control, holding TNCs vicariously liable for the independent actions of their drivers is inappropriate. This is generally aligned with how independent contractors are treated in other areas of the law. Beyond the statutory requirements TNCs fulfill before allowing drivers to use their networks, TNCs maintain $1 million in liability coverage per trip, 20 times the state minimum protection drivers, riders, and any third parties that may be involved in an accident. Statistically, 99.9% of rides end without incident. And when accidents resulting in a lawsuit occur, 99.4% are fully resolved within the existing liability coverage. Thank you so much. Thank you to my joint sponsor, Representative Kishman, and thank you, committee, for hearing this bill. To continue the testimony, despite this, recent lawsuits have attempted to hold TNCs, these networks, vicariously liable for the negligent actions of their contractors in pursuit of corporate excess insurance. These lawsuits cost these TNCs tens of million dollars annually, driving up insurance costs, which in turn drive up costs and reduce earning opportunities for drivers. As the understanding that vicarious liability should not apply to independent contractors is already established in law, as Ohio courts have ruled in these cases already here, as in Tracy Giffen v. Uber Technologies, James Michaud v. James River Insurance and Erie Insurance v. Taryn Ratchford et al. Other states, including Florida, Georgia, Nevada, Texas, they've already passed similar legislation as this, codifying the types of judicial rulings we've had here in Ohio. And they have seen immediate benefits. In Florida, for example, a similar bill passed in 2020, and it led to roughly a 30% reduction in Uber's insurance costs per trips, therefore also having cheaper Uber rides in Florida between January 2024 and July 2025. In summary, this bill aligns TNC practices with existing product liability and vicarious liability law and judicial holdings regarding independent contractors, and it will reduce meritless lawsuits that only serve to increase rideshare costs on Ohioans. This bill does not weaken, will not weaken protections already in place, that the market has already filled that gap to protect both drivers and passengers. And it does not preclude drivers from recovering damages in the rare incidents when that may be necessary Thank you for the opportunity to testify We ask for favorable consideration and we are happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you representatives for bringing the bill today.
Are there questions from the committee? Chair recognizes Ranking Member Grimm.
Thank you very much chair and thank you so much representatives for being here. Um, so I want to point to the very last thing that, um, representative, uh, Matthews had said, the bill will not weaken protections already in place to protect both drivers and passengers and will not procure drivers from recovering damages in the rare instances. I guess that's drivers, but like, um, passengers. So I want to talk about a recent case that was in Arizona where an Uber was actually ordered to pay $1.5 million over a passenger who was raped by a driver. Um, so I, um, as someone who has worked in the rape crisis space and that kind of thing, and there are probably, um, there's, there's anticipation that there's going to be more cases around Uber and, um, rape cases and Uber, um, being liable for these. Um, what, um, what would this bill do around cases like this where people go and say, I was raped by an Uber driver and, um, it would Uber and Lyft now not be liable for these and what would these cases be? So I, uh, you know, if you could talk more about, um, this in the context of that recent case.
Through the chair to the ranking member, I would have to see the facts of that case. It's outside of Ohio law, but obviously we do not want that to happen. We do not want those cases. We want people to be safe when they're using these rideshare technologies. This is specifically for, and if Uber did anything or Lyft or any of these other types of rideshares are demanding that some illegal thing happens, then they are vicariously liable. We have in the language even a more mundane thing where it says if the rideshare application says you have to break the law or drive down the wrong way on a one-way street, then they are vicariously liable because they're telling them to do a criminal action. So if there is any type of criminal action within that that is guided by the rideshare technology, then this law still makes them liable. However, it would be that element of control, and it is protected more on the guidance and distinction there because this is codifying what we've seen in independent contractors. I know that when I've been in ride shares, a single vehicle with a single driver has multiple ride share applications up at the same time. They'll have an Uber. They'll have a Lyft. They'll have something else going on. That's not a normal employee-employee relationship. That is much more of a type of independent contractor. but I would be happy to talk about those details and how that they would apply.
Yes, ma'am.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Chair.