Dietz v. Harshbarger
2017 Ohio 2917
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On June 29, 2012 Christina Deitz (driver) and her daughter Alexis were in a collision at the intersection of Scott Road (township road) and Sharp Road (county road); Christina failed to stop at a stop sign and died; Alexis was injured.
- Plaintiffs sued Franklin Township Board of Trustees (Board), Shelby County Commissioners, the Harshbargers (landowners), and others alleging negligence and wrongful death, claiming the stop sign was obscured by tree foliage on Harshbargers’ property and the intersection sightlines were obstructed by a neighboring cornfield.
- The Board moved for summary judgment asserting immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744; plaintiffs argued exceptions to immunity applied under R.C. 2744.02(B)(3) for failure to remove obstructions and failure to keep public roads in repair (relating to a stop-ahead sign placement).
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the Board (and some co-defendants); plaintiffs appealed only the Board ruling to this court.
- The appellate court analyzed whether the stop sign and the stop-ahead sign constitute part of a “public road” (R.C. 2744.01(H)) by asking whether each traffic control device was mandated by the Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (OMUTCD) or statute; it affirmed summary judgment for the Board.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop sign is part of the "public road" so R.C. 2744.02(B)(3) obstruction exception applies | Stop sign was effectively mandatory as erected and foliage obscured it; obstruction exception applies | Stop sign was discretionary (not mandated by OMUTCD/statute) and thus not a "public road" feature; general immunity applies | Court: stop sign not mandated by OMUTCD or statute for these non-through roads, so it is not within "public road" definition; immunity applies |
| Whether overhanging foliage that obscured the stop sign is an "obstruction" under R.C. 2744.02(B)(3) | Foliage obstructed a traffic control device and local authority negligently failed to remove it | Even if foliage existed, because the sign is not part of a "public road" the obstruction exception doesn't apply | Court: did not reach whether foliage constituted an actionable obstruction because stop sign not within statute’s "public road" definition; immunity stands |
| Whether the stop-ahead sign placement (730 ft vs. OMUTCD guidance 325 ft) falls within "in repair" or removes immunity | Placement violated OMUTCD guidance and deprived driver adequate notice; exception to immunity applies | Placement is a discretionary design/placement decision; even if within statute, discretion defenses under R.C. 2744.03 restore immunity | Court: sign placement is design/construction/planning (not "in repair"); OMUTCD distances are guidance; placement decision is discretionary and protected by R.C. 2744.03, so immunity applies |
| Burden of proof for governmental immunity at summary judgment | Plaintiffs must show an exception applies | Board bears initial burden to establish general immunity, then plaintiff must show an exception | Court: parties agreed Board is generally immune; plaintiffs failed to show any R.C. 2744.02(B) exception applied; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Shaffer, 90 Ohio St.3d 388 (Ohio 2000) (standard of review for summary judgment explained)
- Franks v. Lopez, 69 Ohio St.3d 345 (Ohio 1994) (failure to maintain traffic signs can constitute an actionable claim; discretion defenses discussed)
- Elston v. Howland Local Schools, 113 Ohio St.3d 314 (Ohio 2007) (three-tier R.C. 2744 analysis explained)
- Howard v. Miami Twp. Fire Div., 119 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2008) (Legislature narrowed political-subdivision liability; "obstruction" standard interpreted)
- Haynes v. City of Franklin, 95 Ohio St.3d 344 (Ohio 2002) (discretionary design/construction decisions immunized)
- Garland v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 48 Ohio St.3d 10 (Ohio 1989) (government immune for decisions on what traffic control device to install)
- Sanderbeck v. Medina Cty., 130 Ohio St.3d 175 (Ohio 2011) (discussion of "in repair" concept and immunity for design vs maintenance)
- White v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 56 Ohio St.3d 39 (Ohio 1990) (foliage can obstruct view of traffic signs; duty to prevent such obstructions under separate statutory duties)