2018 Ohio 2991
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Four teenagers died after their car went airborne while crossing railroad tracks on Boston Road; parents of three plaintiffs sued Columbia Township and Liverpool Township for wrongful death.
- Plaintiffs alleged the Townships negligently (1) failed to remove obstructions at the crossing, (2) failed to keep the road in repair, and (3) failed to install/maintain mandatory traffic-control markings and signage.
- Townships moved for summary judgment asserting political-subdivision immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744; trial court granted in part but denied as to the obstruction, in-repair, and marking claims.
- The Townships appealed the partial denial of summary judgment (interlocutory appeal limited to immunity issues under R.C. 2744.02(C)).
- Key factual points: road had a 7.9% rise to the tracks and downward slope after; teens admitted they intentionally used the elevation changes to make the car go airborne; experts opined vehicles could go airborne at speeds above ~40 mph; there was no evidence of a physical object blocking the roadway and no proof the car contacted prior gouges in the pavement.
- The Ninth District reversed the trial court, holding the Townships retained immunity because plaintiffs failed to show an "obstruction" or that the road was not "in repair" under the statutory exceptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the railroad crossing condition constituted an "obstruction" under R.C. 2744.02(B)(3) | Crossing elevation changes and resulting hazard (unsafe at posted speed) are an obstruction because they prevent safe travel at the speed limit | "Obstruction" requires something that blocks or clogs the roadway; here nothing blocked the road and Howard limits the term narrowly | Reversed trial court: not an obstruction; Howard requires blockage/clogging, not mere hazard or impediment |
| Whether the road was "in repair" under R.C. 2744.02(B)(3) | Road not in repair because its design/slope made it unsafe at the legal speed limit and it lacked mandatory markings | "In repair" means in good or sound condition (surface condition); design/construction defects are discretionary and immune; plaintiffs showed no surface defect causally linked to crash | Reversed trial court: plaintiffs failed to show the travelled surface was out of repair or that missing required devices caused the crash; immunity applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (court set summary judgment standard)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (movant's initial burden on summary judgment explained)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (de novo review of summary judgment)
- Howard v. Miami Twp. Fire Div., 119 Ohio St.3d 1 (2008) ("obstruction" must block or clog roadway; hazards/impediments insufficient)
- Manufacturer's Nat'l Bank v. Erie Cty. Rd. Comm., 63 Ohio St.3d 318 (prior nuisance analysis referenced)
- Franks v. Lopez, 69 Ohio St.3d 345 (design/construction decisions involve discretionary functions and immunity)
- Lambert v. Clancy, 125 Ohio St.3d 231 (three-tiered R.C. 2744 analysis)
- Hubbell v. Xenia, 115 Ohio St.3d 77 (importance of early resolution of immunity issues)
- Murphy v. Carrollton Mfg. Co., 61 Ohio St.3d 585 (more than one proximate cause may exist)