In the case Vasquez-Cromer v. Toledo, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-18-1266, 2019-Ohio-5149, an Ohio Appellate court held that a city does not create a foreseeable hazard for the purposes of removing a city’s statutory immunity when a city uses cold patch to repair potholes.
In this case, a driver sued a city for negligence after the driver damaged the driver’s car by driving into a pothole. The driver argued that the city was negligent in failing to repair the pothole because the city created a foreseeable risk by using a cold patch to repair a pothole that would eventually fail. The driver argued that the city was not entitled to statutory immunity because the city’s negligent failure to repair the pothole was an exception to statutory immunity under R.C. 2744.02(B)(3).
The Ohio appellate court held that simply because a pothole fixed by a cold patch would eventually fail does not create a foreseeable risk as to put the city on notice of future hazards. Thus, the Ohio appellate court held that the city was entitled to statutory immunity under R.C. 2744.02.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always changing like the Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.