Digiorno v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.
2017 Ohio 2698
| Ohio Ct. Cl. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs (Gary and Cynthia Digiorno) sued Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) after ODOT agents removed seven trees from Cynthia Digiorno’s property adjacent to State Route 18 in February 2014.
- Digiorno contends the trees were healthy and removal was wrongful; ODOT personnel told her the trees were "rotted" and/or caused excessive shade that accelerated pavement deterioration and posed a hazard.
- ODOT records include a Sept. 23, 2013 work order (signed by transportation manager Kim Scott) listing the trees as "dead," marked for removal; Scott testified she marked trees that presented pavement problems and that an ODOT engineer reviewed the work order.
- A professional surveyor’s affidavit established the removed stumps lay within ODOT’s 1955 highway easement/right-of-way.
- Statutory authority (R.C. 5501.42) vests the ODOT director with control over trees within state highway limits and permits cutting when necessary for highway construction, maintenance, or public safety.
- The court found no genuine issue of material fact that the removals related to highway maintenance/safety within the easement and granted ODOT summary judgment; plaintiffs were denied compensation and assessed court costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ODOT unlawfully removed trees located within state highway easement | Removal was wrongful; trees were healthy and reasons for removal were fabricated | Trees were within ODOT right-of-way and removed for reasons tied to pavement deterioration and motorist safety | ODOT acted within easement authority; removal consistent with highway purposes; summary judgment for ODOT |
| Whether plaintiffs are entitled to compensation for tree removal within an existing easement | Easement did not authorize this removal or additional uncompensated impairment | Once an easement was granted and compensation paid, no extra compensation is due for improvements consistent with easement purposes | No additional compensation due where removal served highway purposes; claim fails |
| Whether material factual disputes (condition of trees / ODOT’s motives) preclude summary judgment | Disputes about tree condition and post hoc rationales create genuine issues | Evidence shows trees in ROW, shading/pavement issues, supervisor/engineer approval—no material dispute on legal effect | Court found no genuine issue of material fact as to legal effect; summary judgment appropriate |
| Whether ODOT exceeded statutory authority (R.C. 5501.42) in removing trees | Removal exceeded permissible exercise of powers under statute | Statute authorizes cutting/removal when necessary for maintenance or safety, which applies here | Removal fell within statutory authority for maintenance/safety; lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Gilbert v. Summit County, 104 Ohio St.3d 660 (Ohio 2004) (summary judgment standard and construing evidence in favor of nonmoving party)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (Ohio 1977) (summary judgment principles)
- Masheter v. Blaisdell, 30 Ohio St.2d 8 (Ohio 1972) (landowner compensated when easement granted cannot demand additional compensation for improvements consistent with easement purposes)