Adkins v. Village of Ontario
Decision Date | 21 December 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 83-103,83-103 |
Citation | 8 OBR 406,8 Ohio St.3d 45,457 N.E.2d 317 |
Parties | , 8 O.B.R. 406 ADKINS, Appellant, v. VILLAGE OF ONTARIO, Appellee, et al. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Baran & Baran Co., L.P.A., Edward C. Baran and John Tarkowsky, Mansfield, for appellant.
Sauter & Hohenberger and George V. Sauter, Mansfield, for appellee.
The sole issue presented for our determination is whether the court of appeals was correct in affirming the trial court's grant of summary judgment, pursuant to Civ.R. 56, in favor of appellee, village of Ontario.
Pursuant to Civ.R. 56(C), summary judgment may be granted when it appears from the evidence submitted that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, such party being entitled to have the evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in his favor. We must, therefore, construe the evidence most strongly in favor of appellant. Applying this standard, we conclude that summary judgment was improperly granted. For the reasons which follow, we find that sufficient evidence was presented to raise questions of fact as to whether R.C. 723.01 imposes a duty on Ontario for the condition of the guardrail and whether the guardrail constituted a nuisance rendering the highway unsafe for normal travel.
Appellant argues that R.C. 723.01 imposes a duty on a municipality to have properly maintained or removed the guardrail. Having failed to do so, appellant contends that Ontario created a nuisance with respect to the guardrail involved in the accident.
R.C. 723.01 provides that:
This language mandates that highways be kept open, in repair and free from nuisance. The statute was construed in Fankhauser v. Mansfield (1969), 19 Ohio St.2d 102 , 249 N.E.2d 789. The court stated at page 108, 249 N.E.2d 789 that one object of R.C. 723.01 is "to keep highways and streets open for the purposes for which they were designed and built, i.e., to afford the public a safe means of travel." The court concluded that the petitions, alleging that the municipality's failure to keep a traffic signal in proper working order caused an accident and injury, stated a cause of action. The court noted that traffic control signals are as much a part of streets and highways as median strips, safety islands or guardrails.
Applying the principle enunciated in Fankhauser to the case sub judice, the question is whether Ontario's obligation to keep the highway safe for travel includes responsibility for the condition of a guardrail on a median strip or safety island.
In Dickerhoof v. Canton (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 128, 451 N.E.2d 1193, the court addressed the question of whether this statutory duty extended to a chuckhole in the shoulder of the road. We held in paragraph two of the syllabus that, " * * * a municipal corporation may be liable for injuries resulting from its failure to keep the shoulder of a highway in repair and free from nuisance, when such defect renders the highway unsafe for normal travel."
However, in Strunk v. Dayton Power & Light Co. (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 429, 431, 453 N.E.2d 604, we were
Construing the evidence most strongly in favor of appellant, as required by Civ.R. 56(C), reasonable minds could come to different conclusions on whether Ontario was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
Initially, it must be determined whether R.C. 723.01 imposes a responsibility on Ontario for the condition of the guardrail. It is not clear from our previous decisions construing R.C. 723.01 whether the location of the guardrail imposes a responsibility on Ontario for its condition. We found that the statute did not impose a responsibility for the light pole which was beyond the roadway and shoulder in Strunk, but that it did impose a responsibility for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Power v. Boles
...by holding that a permanent obstruction to visibility within the roadway right-of-way can be a nuisance. In Adkins v. Ontario (1983), 8 Ohio St.3d 45, 8 OBR 406, 457 N.E.2d 317, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment for the village, holding that the condition of a guardrail on a ......
-
Barbara J. Carney v. Hulon Mcafee
...of a defect, obstruction or excavation violating the statute, the need for barriers is discussed." Id. at 81. In Adkins v. Village of Ontario (1983), 8 Ohio St. 3d 45, 47, the Ohio Supreme Court held that the issues of whether guardrail was located close enough to the highway to impose a du......
-
Curless v. Lathrop Co.
...such party being entitled to have the evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in his favor." Adkins v. Ontario (1983), 8 Ohio St.3d 45, 46, 8 OBR 406, 407, 457 N.E.2d 317, 318. In Vetovitz Bros., Inc., v. Kenny Constr. Co. (1978), 60 Ohio App.2d 331, 332, 14 O.O.3d 292, 293, 397 N.E......
-
Defini v. Broadview Hts.
...[1988], 37 Ohio St.3d 222, 525 N.E.2d 468, followed.)" Appellant cites the Ohio Supreme Court's holding in Adkins v. Ontario (1983), 8 Ohio St.3d 45, 8 OBR 406, 457 N.E.2d 317, as controlling. We disagree. The issue in Adkins was whether the guardrail, which was installed without a buried e......