In the case Georgantonis v. City of Reading, 2020-Ohio-3961, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 2853, an Ohio appellate court found that the plaintiff’s mere assertion that the street-lighting system was a utility was insufficient to establish that it was a utility for purposes of R.C. 2744.01(G)(2)(c). By establishing a lighting system, the city was not engaged in establishing, operating or maintaining a utility as street lighting was not specifically designated as a proprietary function in R.C. 2744.01(G)(2). The city’s provision of street lighting on a public street served the common good of all citizens of the state in accordance with R.C. 2744.01(C)(1)(b) and did not satisfy the first prong of the conjunctive test in R.C. 2744.01(G)(1)(a), and was not a proprietary function. The provision of street lighting on a public street did not satisfy the second prong set forth in R.C. 2744.01(G)(1)(b) because it did not involve an activity that was customarily engaged in by nongovernmental persons.
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 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.