Shope v. Portsmouth
2012 Ohio 1605
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Eric Shope died in an ATV accident on a portion of Munn Street in Portsmouth, Ohio, involving grassy, unpaved terrain adjacent to a ravine and Munn’s Run creek.
- Brenda Shope, as administrator of Eric’s estate, sued the City of Portsmouth alleging negligent maintenance of the road and failure to place or maintain traffic control devices.
- Portsmouth moved for summary judgment asserting immunity under R.C. 2744.01 et seq., arguing no applicable exception to immunity.
- The trial court denied summary judgment based on the statutory exception in R.C. 2744.02(B)(3) for negligent failure to keep public roads in repair or remove obstructions.
- The appellate court must determine whether the alleged conduct falls within R.C. 2744.02(B)(3) and whether the location qualifies as a public road.
- The court held that R.C. 2744.02(B)(3) does not apply because the location was not a repaired, passable public road and because traffic-control devices at issue were discretionary rather than mandatory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2744.02(B)(3) applies to this accident | Shope contends the city failed to keep a public road in repair or remove an obstruction. | Portsmouth argues the incident occurred on non-road terrain or on a non-mandatory device context, outside the B(3) scope. | B(3) does not apply; immunity is not defeated. |
| Whether the accident occurred on a public road | Munn Street purportedly continues past the paved area into the ravine and beyond. | Munn Street ends where pavement ends; the grassy area is not a public road. | Regardless of location, B(3) cannot apply to the spot. |
| Whether discretionary traffic control devices trigger B(3) liability | Nonuse of certain warning signs implicates public road responsibilities under B(3). | Traffic-control devices at issue are discretionary; B(3) requires mandatory devices only. | B(3) does not apply to discretionary devices; immunity stands. |
| Whether obstruction-related devices or barricades create a duty under B(3) | Ravine and creek constituted obstructions requiring warning devices. | Area not improved for vehicular use; no right to drive there; barricade standards not mandatory. | No duty under B(3); barricade noncompliance not actionable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Comer v. Risko, 106 Ohio St.3d 185 (Ohio 2005) (summary judgment standard; Civ.R. 56 applies; independence of review)
- Hortman v. Miamisburg, 110 Ohio St.3d 194 (2006) (three-tier immunity framework)
- Turner v. Ohio Bell Tel. Co., 118 Ohio St.3d 215 (2008) (public-road concept and non-dedicated areas)
- Franks v. Lopez, 69 Ohio St.3d 345 (1994) (nuisance language removed; narrowed immunity)