2018 Ohio 4756
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- In Aug. 2012 Mariah Mauntel stepped on a concrete curb in Norwood that crumbled; she fell and broke her foot while holding her infant.
- Mauntel sued the City of Norwood and her grandmother (owner of adjacent property) for negligent failure to maintain the roadway/curb.
- Norwood moved for summary judgment asserting: (1) no notice of the defect; and (2) political-subdivision immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744, with the public-roads exception R.C. 2744.02(B)(3) inapplicable because a curb is not a "public road."
- Mauntel opposed, submitting an engineer’s affidavit describing curbs as integral to roadways and essential for pedestrian protection, drainage, and structural support.
- The trial court denied Norwood’s motion, holding the curb was part of the public road and the public-roads exception applied. Norwood appealed.
- The court of appeals reversed, holding the raised curb is not part of the statutory definition of "public roads," so R.C. 2744.02(B)(3) does not apply and Norwood retained immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the curb is part of the statutory term "public roads" under R.C. 2744.02(B)(3) | Curb is integral to the roadway; exception to immunity therefore applies | Curb is not part of the public road; political-subdivision immunity applies | Curb is not part of "public roads" for §2744.02(B)(3); immunity stands |
| Whether any exception to political-subdivision immunity applies | The public-roads exception applies because curb falls within roadway maintenance duty | No exception applies; city is immune under R.C. 2744.02(A)(1) | No exception applies here; city entitled to immunity |
| Whether summary judgment was properly denied | Factual record (engineer affidavit) raises a triable issue about whether curb is part of road | Law requires plain statutory construction; curb is part of berm/shoulder, not road | Court reviews de novo and holds as a matter of law that curb is not part of public road |
| Whether remand should direct entry for defendant | n/a (plaintiff seeks denial) | City asks for judgment in its favor | Judgement reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Norwood |
Key Cases Cited
- Hubbell v. City of Xenia, 115 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 2007) (order denying immunity is final, appealable)
- Pelletier v. City of Campbell, 153 Ohio St.3d 611 (Ohio 2018) (de novo review of denial of immunity and summary-judgment standard)
- Baker v. Wayne Cty., 147 Ohio St.3d 51 (Ohio 2016) (defining limits of "public roads" and excluding berms/shoulders)
- Howard v. Miami Twp. Fire Div., 119 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2008) (legislative amendments narrowed scope of liability to roadway itself)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (summary-judgment standard)
- Colbert v. Cleveland, 99 Ohio St.3d 215 (Ohio 2003) (three-tiered R.C. 2744 immunity analysis)