2019 Ohio 1161
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- On April 27, 2013, Kenneth Cerri lost control of his motorcycle where Burrows Road transitioned from pavement to gravel at the crest of a hill and was injured; a passenger traversed the same spot moments earlier without incident.
- Burrows Road lies along the border of Thompson and Montville Townships; a 1989 agreement divided maintenance responsibility but in practice the townships sometimes shared work and costs.
- In 2012 the townships pursued a “sight line” project that involved paving part of Burrows Road; funding limits and disputed decisions left an abrupt pavement-to-gravel transition where the accident later occurred.
- Cerri sued multiple defendants alleging (among other things) negligent maintenance and that the road was not kept “in repair”; Thompson moved for summary judgment asserting governmental immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744.
- The trial court denied Thompson’s summary judgment motion; the appellate court reviewed de novo whether an exception to political-subdivision immunity applied (R.C. 2744.02(B)(3)) and whether Thompson had any defenses under R.C. 2744.03.
- The record contained conflicting evidence on maintenance: meeting minutes and testimony showed disputes about who would pay/perform maintenance, indications the road was “failing,” delayed use of a maintainer until after the accident, and differing opinions on road condition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2744.02(B)(3) exception for negligent failure to keep public roads in repair applies | Cerri: the gravel transition and road condition reflect negligent failure to keep the road in repair | Thompson: design, paving decisions, signage, shoulders, and speed limit are discretionary or not part of "in repair"; no evidence of disrepair | Held: Genuine factual dispute exists whether Burrows Road (a gravel road) was negligently maintained and thus not entitled to immunity under the "in repair" exception |
| Whether the road condition constituted an "obstruction" under R.C. 2744.02(B)(3) | Cerri: abnormally large gravel and gravel condition impeded safe use | Thompson: no evidence the roadway was blocked or clogged; the road was passable (other rider passed) | Held: No obstruction as defined by Howard; record insufficient to show blockage or clogging |
| Whether discretionary-function defenses under R.C. 2744.03 shield Thompson from liability for maintenance claims | Cerri: once a jurisdiction elects a gravel road, it has a duty to maintain—discretion ends; maintenance negligence is non-discretionary | Thompson: decisions about design, signage, and speed are discretionary policy decisions immune under R.C. 2744.03(A)(3) and (5) | Held: Discretionary decisions (e.g., signage, speed) may be immune, but they do not excuse a failure to maintain; no R.C. 2744.03 defense applies to negligent maintenance claim |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Cerri: factual record supports denial because maintenance, allocation of responsibility, and road condition are disputed | Thompson: no genuine issue of material fact; entitled to judgment as a matter of law | Held: Summary judgment denied — genuine issues of material fact preclude immunity-based judgment for Thompson |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (procedure for de novo review of summary judgment)
- Baker v. Wayne Cty., 147 Ohio St.3d 51 (three-tier R.C. Chapter 2744 analysis for political-subdivision immunity)
- Howard v. Miami Twp. Fire Div., 119 Ohio St.3d 1 (definition of "obstruction" as blocking or clogging the roadway)
- Pelletier v. Campbell, 153 Ohio St.3d 611 (use of ordinary meaning of "in repair" and evaluation of obstruction/signage issues)
- Franks v. Lopez, 69 Ohio St.3d 345 (defective design, construction, or lack of signage as discretionary functions)
- Lovick v. Marion, 43 Ohio St.2d 171 (components not part of "roadway" for purposes of repair duty)
- Heckert v. Patrick, 15 Ohio St.3d 402 (examples of road "in repair" as fixing holes/crumbling pavement)
- Bonace v. Springfield Twp., 179 Ohio App.3d 736 ("in repair" does not create a duty to change discrete roadway design choices)