Davis v. Akron, 2014 Ohio 2511

Davis v. Akron arises from a motorcycle crash on Rhodes Ave. in Akron, August 28, 2011, after encountering damaged manhole cover and pothole.
Rhodes Ave. is a one-way, three-lane street; Davis was in the center lane and then moved to the right lane as the light changed.
Davis struck a manhole cover that caused the front end of the motorcycle to lift, then hit a second cover and later a third puncturing the tire, leading to loss of control and a crash.
After the incident, Davis found the third manhole cover severely damaged with protruding metal and a surrounding large pothole.
Davis sued the City of Akron for negligence per se for failure to maintain Rhodes Ave. under R.C. 723.01; the City moved for summary judgment, which the trial court denied for factual issues.
On appeal, the court limits review to immunity under R.C. 2744.02(B)(3), reviewing de novo whether the City was immune from liability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the City is immune from liability under R.C. 2744.02(B)(3).	Davis argues the City failed to maintain Rhodes Ave. and had notice of the hazard, negating immunity.	City asserts immunity unless actual or constructive notice of the hazard is shown, which is not proven.	No immunity; genuine issues of material fact exist on notice and maintenance.

Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (summary judgment de novo standard)
Viock v. Stowe-Woodward Co., 13 Ohio App.3d 7 (6th Dist.1983) (standard for reviewing judgments on appeal)
Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (1977) ( Civ.R.56 summary judgment requirements)
Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (casual burden on moving party for Civ.R.56)
Haynes v. Franklin, 95 Ohio St.3d 344 (2002) (notice requirement for immunity exception)
McGuire v. Lorain, 2011-Ohio-3887 (9th Dist. Lorain) (constructive notice as basis for liability)
Harp v. Cleveland Hts., 87 Ohio St.3d 506 (2000) (hazard assessment and notice standards)
Mussivand v. David, 45 Ohio St.3d 314 (1989) (negligence elements; distinguishable from immunity scope)
Hubbell v. Xenia, 115 Ohio St.3d 77 (2007) (appeals review of immunity rulings; de novo review)
Supportive Solutions, L.L.C. v. Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow, 2013-Ohio-2410 (Supreme Court) (immunity scope and finality considerations)
Makowski v. Kohler, 2011-Ohio-2382 (9th Dist. Summit) (scope of review under R.C. 2744.02(C))
Devaux v. Albrecht Trucking Co. Inc., 2010-Ohio-1249 (9th Dist. Medina) (scope of immunity appeal limitations)