2012 Ohio 2718
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- 1949 easement granted to Ohio Edison to construct and maintain high voltage transmission lines, requiring full clearance of obstructions within fifty feet of the center line.
- 1977 Wilkes bought the property; 1993 they erected an above-ground pool and a storage shed within the easement.
- 2008 Edison advised the Wilkes that NESC requires greater clearance due to arcing risk; Wilkes refused to move the structures.
- 2009 Edison filed suit for injunctive/declaratory relief (express, implied, and prescriptive easements) and nuisance; PUCO jurisdiction argued by Wilkes.
- 2010 magistrate granted summary judgment for Edison; trial court adopted, ordering removal; Wilkes appealed; PUCO declined jurisdiction previously and Supreme Court later affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PUCO has exclusive jurisdiction over the issue | Edison contends court is proper; PUCO decision affirmed avoidance of conflict. | Wilkes argued PUCO jurisdiction should govern safety-structure placement. | PUCO jurisdiction deemed moot; Supreme Court affirmed no exclusive jurisdiction; trial court upheld. |
| Does the easement obstruction clause include structures in the arcing zone | Obstruction includes structures within easement and arcing zone to protect safe operation. | Obstruction should mean only literal blockages, not pool/shed near lines. | Yes; court construed obstruction to include structures within the obstruction/arcing zone. |
| Whether there is an implied or prescriptive easement beyond the express easement | Magistrate found express easement; alternative theories exist to address safety. | Doctrines of implied/prescriptive easement cannot broaden express easement. | moot/overruled; alternative easements not necessary to resolve. |
| Whether nuisance theory was properly applied | Nuisance theory supports removal to abate safety hazard within easement. | Nuisance duplicative of express easement and lacks independent viability. | moot; nuisance ruling largely duplicative of express easement ruling. |
| Whether statute of limitations and laches/waiver/estoppel bar Edison's action | Continuing violation tolls limitations; ongoing risk from arcing allows ongoing action. | Laches/estoppel/waiver should extinguish rights; action time-barred. | Not time-barred; continuing violation theory applies; express easement not defeated by laches or estoppel. |
Key Cases Cited
- Howard v. Miami Twp. Fire Div., 119 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2008) (ambiguity in obstruction definitions; uses legislative history)
- Corrigan v. Illuminating Co., 122 Ohio St.3d 265 (Ohio 2009) (electric utilities must comply with NESC; established standard of care)
- In re Complaint of Wilkes v. Ohio Edison Co., 131 Ohio St.3d 252 (Ohio 2012) (Supreme Court affirms PUCO’s denial of jurisdiction)
- In re Complaint of Residents of Struthers, Ohio, 45 Ohio St.3d 227 (Ohio 1989) (PUCO jurisdiction; context for review of jurisdictional decisions)
- Northern Ohio Tel. Co. v. Putnam, 164 Ohio St. 238 (1955) (revisory limits on appellate review of PUCO decisions)
- Otte v. Dayton Power & Light Co., 37 Ohio St.3d 33 (Ohio 1988) (NESC as binding standard of care for utilities)
- Sexton v. Mason, 117 Ohio St.3d 275 (Ohio 2008) (continuing violation doctrine and tolling limitations)
- Valley Ry. Co. v. Franz, 43 Ohio St. 623 (Ohio 1885) (continuous trespass rule; ongoing nuisance theory)