Slane v. Hilliard
59 N.E.3d 545
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- In October 2007, 16-year-old Crystal Slane was struck by a vehicle while entering the crosswalk at Scioto Darby Road and Leppert Road near Hilliard Darby High School; she suffered a fractured femur.
- Slane sued the City of Hilliard and later added Hilliard City School District, alleging negligent failure to maintain a malfunctioning pedestrian "Walk/Don't Walk" signal and failure to activate school-zone flashing lights for the school's "zero" period.
- City evidence: city inspects traffic signals periodically and programs school-zone flashers by timer (based on regular school hours); the city, not the district, controlled timing and maintenance of the signage/signals.
- Plaintiff produced affidavits from classmates asserting the pedestrian signal was dim or nonfunctional from early in the school year.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for city and district based on statutory immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744; the court found exceptions to immunity in R.C. 2744.02(B) did not apply.
- Appellate court affirmed: held (1) school-zone flashers are not part of "public roads" for purposes of the R.C. 2744.02(B)(3) exception, and (2) no evidence the OMUTCD mandated the pedestrian signal such that it would be treated as a traffic-control device making the city liable under the public-roads exception; the district owed no duty for roadway/sign maintenance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether city liable for not activating school-zone flashers for the "zero" period | Slane: city negligently failed to activate flashers during zero period which caused unsafe crossing | City: flashers are not required for school zones; city followed its timer and is immune under R.C. 2744 | Held: City immune — flashers are not part of "public roads" under R.C. 2744.01(H); no statutory duty to light for zero period |
| Whether city liable for failing to repair/maintain the Walk/Don't Walk signal | Slane: city negligently failed to maintain the pedestrian signal, causing injury | City: signal is not a traffic-control device mandated by OMUTCD; immunity applies under R.C. 2744.02(A) and (B)(3) exception inapplicable | Held: City immune — no evidence OMUTCD mandated the device so it is not part of "public roads"; plaintiff failed to meet exception to immunity |
| Whether school district liable for flashers or pedestrian signal | Slane: district liable for failing to ensure lights/signals for student safety (zero-period students) | District: district did not control timing/maintenance; its functions are governmental and immunity applies; no duty for public road repairs or signals | Held: District immune — injury occurred on public roadway, not on district grounds/buildings; district had no legal duty for roadway/sign maintenance |
| Whether any statutory exception to immunity applies (R.C. 2744.02(B)(3),(4),(5)) | Slane: exceptions apply (failure to keep public roads in repair; instruments on grounds; statutory liability) | City/District: exceptions do not apply because flashers/signals are not "public roads" or on school grounds and no statute expressly imposes liability here | Held: No exception applies; summary judgment for defendants affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (discusses summary judgment standard)
- Murphy v. Reynoldsburg, 65 Ohio St.3d 356 (summary judgment to be awarded cautiously; resolve doubts for nonmovant)
- Royce v. Smith, 68 Ohio St.2d 106 (OMUTCD adoption and use as aid in negligence cases)
- Pierce v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 23 Ohio App.3d 124 (applying OMUTCD adherence by local authorities)
- Mussivand v. David, 45 Ohio St.3d 314 (existence of legal duty is generally a question of law)
- Webb v. Edwards, 165 Ohio App.3d 158 (OMUTCD uses: "shall/should/may" distinction)
- Perkins v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 65 Ohio App.3d 487 (OMUTCD standards and advisory distinctions)
- Leskovac v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 71 Ohio App.3d 22 (OMUTCD guidance in roadway cases)