Opinion ID: 2690214
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Effect of City Ordinances

Text: {¶ 23} Finally, the city has provided an example of how it may regulate towing companies in a way that does not conflict with existing PUCO regulations. Cleveland Codified Ordinance 677A.11 addresses public safety and has no comparable PUCO rule or regulation. It states: No person licensed under Section 677A.02, or any of his or her agents or employees, shall respond to the scene of an accident unless either summoned by a person having a direct interest in the vehicle or vehicles involved or dispatched thereto as provided in the rules and regulations promulgated by the Director of Public Safety pursuant to Chapter 135. We of course do not decide today whether this ordinance conflicts with any general laws, as that issue is not before us. But at the very least, the Ohio Constitution grants municipalities the authority “to adopt and enforce within their limits such local police, sanitary and other similar regulations, as are not in conflict with general laws.” (Emphasis added.) Article XVIII, Section 3, Ohio Constitution. The question of which city ordinances survive as nonconflicting remains for another day.