Smith v. Dept. of Transp.
2015 Ohio 5240
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Craig D. Smith owns and operates the Tea House of the Dancing Lady at 22115 Tiffin Avenue since 1975; his business formerly fronted State Route 101.
- In Sept. 2013 ODOT built a new State Route 101 overpass and rerouted the highway; Tiffin Avenue no longer served as State Route 101 and was closed at the railroad tracks south of the property.
- Smith alleges the rerouting and partial closure diverted drive-by traffic, reduced revenues, and diminished his property value, constituting a taking without just compensation.
- ODOT moved for judgment on the pleadings under Civ.R. 12(C); the Court of Claims granted the motion and dismissed Smith’s complaint.
- On appeal, the Tenth District considered whether the alleged diversion, circuity of travel, and partial road closure amounted to a compensable taking of access rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether diversion of traffic by relocating a state highway is a compensable taking | Smith: relocation of SR‑101 diverted traffic away from Tea House causing loss of business and property value | ODOT: landowners have no right to continued flow of traffic; diversion alone is noncompensable | Court: diversion of traffic is noncompensable under Merritt; claim fails |
| Whether closing Tiffin Ave. south of the property that creates circuity of travel is a taking | Smith: closure and rerouting made access impractical and uniquely harmed his drive‑by–dependent business | ODOT: circuity/inconvenience shared by public and necessary for public interest; no unique right lost | Court: mere circuity/inconvenience is not a taking; access not physically impaired |
| Whether Smith’s continued but less profitable operation alleges a denial of ingress/egress | Smith: economic loss from reduced visibility and access equates to impairment | ODOT: complaint pleads no physical interference with ingress/egress; access remains available | Court: access remains; economic harm alone does not establish a compensable taking |
| Whether ODOT’s project was arbitrary or lacked public‑interest justification (rebutting presumption of validity) | Smith: ODOT official said Tiffin would be closed; implies arbitrariness | ODOT: project presumed reasonably related to public safety/efficiency; Smith must plead facts to rebut | Court: complaint fails to allege facts showing capriciousness or lack of public‑interest rationale; presumption stands |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Merritt v. Linzel, 163 Ohio St. 97 (Ohio 1955) (relocation of highway and diversion of traffic causing loss of business is noncompensable where access remains and former road remains usable)
- Jackson v. Jackson, 16 Ohio St. 163 (Ohio 1865) (mere alteration rendering a road less convenient does not give rise to recovery absent direct impairment of access)
- New York, Chicago & St. Louis RR. Co. v. Bucsi, 128 Ohio St. 134 (Ohio 1934) (owner abutting a street not entitled to damages when access to street system is not impaired by a vacation or closure)
- New Way Family Laundry, Inc. v. Toledo, 171 Ohio St. 242 (Ohio 1960) (construction of divider eliminating left turns and requiring circuity does not constitute actionable interference with ingress/egress)
- Richley v. Jones, 38 Ohio St.2d 64 (Ohio 1974) (governmental exercise of police power carries a presumption of reasonableness; landowner must show activity is arbitrary or unrelated to public welfare)
- Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Akron, 109 Ohio St.3d 106 (Ohio 2006) (to rebut presumption of validity of government action, property owner must show restriction is unreasonable or arbitrary)