2019 Ohio 2560
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Pedestrian Daniel Buchenroth was struck in January 2017 while walking in a marked midblock crosswalk near 249 Calhoun Street, Cincinnati.
- Buchenroth sued the City of Cincinnati (among others), alleging negligence in inspection, maintenance, repair, design, construction, and erection of crosswalk markings and warning signs.
- The city moved for judgment on the pleadings (Civ.R. 12(C)), arguing statutory immunity under the Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act (R.C. Chapter 2744).
- Relevant statutory framework: political subdivisions are generally immune; R.C. 2744.02(B)(3) creates an exception for negligent failure to keep public roads in repair, but “public roads” exclude traffic-control devices unless those devices are mandated by the Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (OMUTCD).
- The parties stipulated to photographic exhibits showing the location and that the crosswalk was midblock; the court took judicial notice of those exhibits.
- The trial court denied the city’s motion; the appellate court reviewed whether crosswalk signs/lines were mandated (and thus within the public-roads exception) and concluded they were discretionary and therefore the city is immune.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the city is immune under R.C. Chapter 2744 for injuries related to crosswalk signs/markings | Buchenroth: public-roads exception (R.C. 2744.02(B)(3)) applies because crosswalk signs/lines are part of public roads and mandatory | City: crosswalk signs and markings are discretionary under OMUTCD (and not mandated by statute), so they are not part of "public roads" and immunity applies | Held: City immune; crosswalk signs/lines are discretionary and do not fall within the public-roads exception |
| Whether crosswalk warning signs at a midblock location are mandated by statute or OMUTCD | Buchenroth: signs on Calhoun Street are mandatory (argues through-highway/intersection rules apply) | City: R.C. 4511.65(A) and OMUTCD do not mandate non-vehicular crosswalk signs at midblock locations; OMUTCD uses discretionary language | Held: Signs are discretionary under OMUTCD and not mandated by R.C. 4511.65(A) for midblock crosswalks; not within exception |
| Whether crosswalk pavement markings (lines) are mandatory under OMUTCD section 3B.18 | Buchenroth: OMUTCD uses "shall" for line dimensions and therefore mandates crosswalk lines at non-intersection locations | City: OMUTCD prescribes standards when lines are used but does not require use; other OMUTCD language uses "should" and recommends engineering study for non-intersection marked crosswalks | Held: OMUTCD does not mandate marking every non-intersection crosswalk; lines are discretionary, so the public-roads exception does not apply |
| Whether any set of pleadable facts could overcome immunity (i.e., whether judgment on the pleadings was improper) | Buchenroth: factual issues about compliance and maintenance may exist | City: location/character of crosswalk (midblock, discretionary devices) is dispositive and undisputed; discovery cannot change that | Held: No set of facts would bring the crosswalk devices within the statutory exception; judgment on the pleadings should have been granted for the city |
Key Cases Cited
- Howard v. Miami Twp. Fire Div., 891 N.E.2d 311 (Ohio 2008) (explains three-step political-subdivision immunity analysis under R.C. Chapter 2744)
- Bibler v. Stevenson, 80 N.E.3d 424 (Ohio 2016) (stop signs at intersections of through highways held mandatory under R.C. 4511.65 and thus could fall within the public-roads exception)
- State ex rel. Findlay Publ’g Co. v. Schroeder, 669 N.E.2d 835 (Ohio 1996) (judicial notice may be taken on motions for judgment on the pleadings for matters not subject to reasonable dispute)
- Deitz v. Harshbarger, 89 N.E.3d 1271 (Ohio App. 2017) (discusses discretionary nature of some traffic-control devices and limits of public-roads exception)