108 N.E.3d 769
Oh. Muni. Ct., Cleveland2018Background
- On Jan. 27, 2018, James P. Barker Jr. made a U-turn on West 130th Street to access I‑480 and was stopped by Trooper Michael Hounsel for violating a single posted "No U‑turn" sign.
- The roadway is divided by a grassy island with two openings (front and back), but only one "No U‑turn" sign is mounted on the island behind the back opening.
- Barker admitted making the U‑turn and presented a diagram and OMUTCD authority arguing the sign should be placed before the intersection/opening it restricts.
- The trooper acknowledged prior cases where drivers contested which opening a single median sign governed and that some trials were lost for that reason.
- The court framed the legal question as whether the sign was properly positioned under the Ohio Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (OMUTCD), because improperly placed signs are not enforceable under O.R.C. 4511.12.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the "No U‑turn" sign was properly positioned under OMUTCD so as to be enforceable | The sign existed on the median and raises a presumption of lawful placement | The sign was not properly positioned before the opening where he turned; OMUTCD requires signs before the movement/intersection | Court held the sign was not properly positioned to prohibit the U‑turn at the front opening and accepted defendant's affirmative defense; not guilty |
| Who bears the burden to prove sign compliance once existence is shown | Existence creates an inference of lawful placement; prosecution must prove compliance | Defendant may rebut the inference by proving noncompliance with OMUTCD | Court reiterated inference shifts burden to defendant to rebut and ultimately prosecution must prove compliance; defendant successfully rebutted in this case |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Painesville v. Kincaid, 57 N.E.3d 152 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015) (discusses burden-shifting and OMUTCD compliance for traffic-control devices)
- Maple Heights v. Smith, 722 N.E.2d 607 (Ohio Ct. App. 1999) (addressing enforceability of traffic signs not properly positioned)
- City of Lyndhurst v. McGinness, 741 N.E.2d 976 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000) (applying OMUTCD placement rules to U‑turn/traffic‑control sign disputes)