Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co. v. Major Waste Disposal
2016 Ohio 7442
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Eric Tyson, a 13-year Major Waste employee who regularly drove Hoose Road, struck a low-hanging Ohio Bell aerial cable with his rear-loading garbage truck on February 20, 2013.
- Tyson checked the truck (arms down, no load on top) and proceeded about 10 mph; he had never previously encountered a low wire on that route.
- Measurements by an electrical contractor showed the truck’s highest point was 13'4", while NESC required clearance for that line of 15'5", indicating the line was below code.
- Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (CEI) and Ohio Bell sued Major Waste and Tyson for negligence; the cases were consolidated.
- Major Waste and Tyson moved for summary judgment arguing no duty existed because they did not create the hazard and the low wire was not reasonably foreseeable or discernible.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; the appellate majority affirmed, holding plaintiffs failed to show the wire was reasonably discernible under the assured-clear-distance statute. One judge dissented, arguing discernibility/appreciation of danger was a jury question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants owed a duty and were negligent for striking a low aerial cable | Defendants should be liable for damage to utility line; line was low and thus hazardous | No duty because defendants did not create the hazard and the event was unforeseeable | No duty/liability as matter of law on negligence theory—summary judgment for defendants affirmed |
| Whether NESC clearance evidence could be applied at summary judgment | NESC noncompliance establishes the line was low; plaintiffs contested nothing about NESC’s applicability | Defendants relied on expert measuring and NESC to show the line was below required clearance | Court applied NESC evidence; plaintiff waived challenge by not disputing expert’s references; NESC supported finding the line was low |
| Whether R.C. 4511.21 (assured-clear-distance-ahead) applied to impose negligence per se on driver | Tyson failed to maintain assured clear distance; statute requires a driver avoid objects that are reasonably discernible ahead | The wire was not reasonably discernible to Tyson; he had no cognitive awareness it was a hazard despite possibly seeing it | Plaintiffs failed to produce evidence the wire was reasonably discernible; statute did not apply—summary judgment appropriate |
| Whether discernibility was a factual issue for the jury | Plaintiffs argued discernibility typically is a jury question (cases cited) | Defendants argued uncontested affidavit showed no reasonable awareness, leaving no genuine factual dispute | Majority: no conflicting evidence → no triable issue; dissent: reasonable minds could differ and discernibility/appreciation should go to jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (standard of review for summary judgment is de novo)
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (2003) (elements of negligence: duty, breach, proximate causation)
- McFadden v. Elmer C. Breuer Transp. Co., 156 Ohio St. 430 (1952) (elements and meaning of "reasonably discernible" under assured-clear-distance rule)
- Pond v. Leslein, 72 Ohio St.3d 50 (1995) (violation of R.C. 4511.21 is negligence per se)
- Sharp v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 36 Ohio St.3d 172 (1988) (discernibility is usually a jury question when evidence conflicts)
- Schroff v. Foley Const. Co., 87 Ohio App. 277 (1st Dist. 1950) (assured-clear-distance applied where driver knew of danger and proceeded)