Amore v. Ohio Turnpike Commission
955 N.E.2d 410
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- In 1984, Amores purchased 1600 Woodland Drive in Peninsula, Ohio.
- Beginning in 1997, the Turnpike Commission undertook an on-right-of-way project expanding east and westbound lanes and removing trees between the home and the turnpike.
- Construction moved lanes 65 feet closer to the Amores’ home, added a steep embankment, and increased traffic noise; a guardrail and hill were built, altering viewing and noise levels.
- Amores sued in 2007 alleging permanent nuisance and, later, takings; the amended complaint included mandamus and taking claims; the trial court denied summary judgment and the case proceeded to trial in 2009.
- During trial, the Amores abandoned mandamus and attempted to dismiss takings; the jury awarded $115,000 for nuisance and $115,000 for takings; post-trial, motions for JNOV and new trial were denied.
- The court of appeals affirmed, addressing multiple assignments of error, including the sufficiency of the nuisance claim and the admissibility of lay home-value testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Takings claim went to jury; proper procedural basis? | Amores maintain takings claim should proceed to jury as triable issue. | Commission contends takings claim defective and improper for jury trial. | Court declined to address; disposition based on other issues, but noted potential grounds for affirmance. |
| Takings claim substantive viability at trial | Takings claim is viable and supported by evidence of intentional project effects. | Takings claim is substantively deficient. | Court declined to resolve; relied on nuisance analysis to affirm judgment. |
| Was the nuisance claim properly sent to the jury? | Nuisance claim presented legally sufficient evidence of private nuisance. | Nuisance claim was deficient and should have directed verdict for defendant. | Nuisance claim supported; denial of JNOV appropriate; assignment sustained. |
| Admissibility of Patricia Amore's testimony valuing the home | Owner-opinion on fair market value admissible without expert testimony. | Value testimony based on hearsay and insufficient foundation. | Owner-opinion rule applicable; testimony admissible. |
| Effect of denial of summary judgment on appeal | Denying summary judgment was error if no genuine issues existed. | Summary-judgment denial harmless where trial showed genuine issues. | Harmless error; genuine issues were raised; affirmed based on trial record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Banks v. Cincinnati, 143 Ohio App.3d 272 (Ohio 2001) (owner may testify to fair market value without expert qualification)
- Angerman v. Burick, 2003-Ohio-1469 (9th Dist. 2003) (absolute nuisance may arise from intentional acts causing unwanted noise)
- Taylor v. Cincinnati, 143 Ohio St. 426 (Ohio 1944) (definition of nuisance and scope of private nuisance)
- Ogle v. Ohio Power Co., 180 Ohio App.3d 44 (2008-Ohio-7042) (private nuisance elements and invasions of use and enjoyment)
- Williams v. Spitzer Auto World Amherst, Inc., 2008-Ohio-1467 (Ohio 2008) (standard for reviewing denial of Civ.R. 50(B) motions)
- Jarvis v. Stone, 2008-Ohio-3313 (9th Dist. 2008) (directed verdict standard; sufficiency of evidence framework)
- McKay v. Cutlip, 80 Ohio App.3d 487 (1992) (courts affirm judgments on any valid ground on appeal)