In the case of Pelletier v. Campbell, 2016-Ohio-8097, an Ohio appellate court found that a city “can be held liable and is not entitled to immunity if it fail[s] to keep its stop sign in repair and/or fail[s] to remove obstructions.” Pelletier at ¶ 15.
Pelletier involved a motorist who collided with another vehicle in an intersection. The motorist claimed that the accident occurred because she did not see the vehicle or stop sign as they were blocked by foliage, which the city failed to properly maintain. Ordinarily, the city would be immune from such a claim. However, the Ohio immunity statute provides a specific exception to immunity for the failure to keep public roads in repair and other negligent failure to remove obstructions. The Ohio appellate court found that where “a mandated traffic control device (which is considered to be, by definition, a public road) no longer serves its purpose because of some extraneous factor, it may be in need of repair as contemplated” under this immunity exception and the city can be found liable. Pelletier at ¶ 22.
The Ohio appellate court’s decision represents a noteworthy expansion of this immunity exception. Previous versions of the exception permitted municipal liability simply for failing to keep roadways free from nuisance. The Ohio General Assembly rejected this language in a deliberate effort to narrow the exception to the roadways themselves and to objects that literally block or clog the roads. The Ohio appellate court’s decision to consider traffic control devices as part of the roads and foliage, that does not blog or clog the roadway, to be an “obstruction” harkens back to the prior version of the statute when political subdivisions could be liable for any condition that jeopardized the safety of traffic, even if that condition did not appear on the roadway itself. Ohio municipal corporations should be wary of this decision and actively remove brush or foliage that may block traffic control devices as they can now be found liable for failing to clear such “obstructions.”
To read this case, please click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and Patrick Vrobel
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always changing 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.