Sanderbeck v. County of Medina
130 Ohio St. 3d 175
| Ohio | 2011Background
- The case asks whether a political subdivision may lose sovereign immunity based solely on an expert’s opinion that a road’s skid resistance is below a threshold at the time of an accident.
- Plaintiff alleges Medina County negligently maintained East Smith Road, causing a wrongful-death crash on March 4, 2006 in Medina County.
- Expert Richard L. Stanford II testified that the road was in disrepair with a skid number of 25 and a critical speed at or below the posted limit, contributing to the crash.
- The trial court denied summary judgment; the Ninth District affirmed, holding the expert testimony created a genuine issue of material fact.
- R.C. 2744.02(B)(3) creates an exception to immunity for negligent failure to keep public roads in repair; the question is whether ‘in repair’ requires deterioration from prior maintenance.
- The dissent argues the majority erred in accepting improvidently whether this evidentiary standard suffices to defeat immunity and would instead decide the merits on immunity and duty to repair.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does expert evidence of skid resistance alone defeat immunity? | Sanderbeck argues skid resistance below threshold shows failure to keep in repair. | Medina County contends skid resistance evidence reflects design/construction decisions, not maintenance failure. | No; evidence does not prove lack of maintenance sufficient to defeat immunity. |
| What does 'in repair' mean under R.C. 2744.02(B)(3)? | Evidence of wear and skid numbers demonstrates disrepair and maintenance failure. | ‘In repair’ requires deterioration from an earlier standard due to lack of maintenance, not mere design defects. | Required showing is deterioration from prior condition; evidence focused on design/construction is insufficient. |
| Can skid-resistance metrics alone establish a genuine issue of material fact on repair? | Skid number 25 and critical speed evidence demonstrate unrepaired condition contributing to the crash. | These metrics relate to design/construct—they do not show maintenance failure. | Skid-resistance metrics alone do not create a repair discrepancy for immunity purposes. |
| Do design/construction decisions fall within immunity, precluding liability under 2744.02(B)(3)? | A road’s poor skid performance may indicate failure to maintain, not design choices. | Liability for design/construction is barred by immunity and discretionary functions. | Immunity remains for design/construction; maintenance-only claims require showing lack of repair. |
Key Cases Cited
- Haverlack v. Portage Homes, Inc., 2 Ohio St.3d 6 (1982) (historical abolition of common-law immunity; framework for political-subdivision liability)
- Haynes v. Franklin, 95 Ohio St.3d 344 (2002) (immunity for design/construction decisions; maintenance concepts distinguished)
- Symmes Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Smyth, 87 Ohio St.3d 549 (2000) (statutory interpretation guidance for plain language terms)
- R.C. 2744.02(B)(3) interpretation, Howard v. Miami Twp. Fire Div. (119 Ohio St.3d 1) (policy to limit liability to preserve fiscal integrity)
- Rankin v. Cuyahoga Cty. Dept. of Children & Family Servs., 118 Ohio St.3d 392 (2008) (tort immunity and statutory interpretation guidance)
- Franks v. Lopez, 69 Ohio St.3d 345 (1994) (discretionary-function defenses preclude certain liability)
- Heckert v. Patrick, 15 Ohio St.3d 402 (1984) (duties to maintain roads and bridges; pre-2744 reasoning retained)