Pope v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.

Decision Date07 May 1998
Docket NumberNo. 96-12161,96-12161
Citation91 Ohio Misc.2d 230,698 N.E.2d 536
PartiesPOPE v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. *
CourtOhio Court of Claims

8. In July 1996, Chris Engle, defendant's Highway Management Administrator, responded to plaintiff's complaints and examined her property. A follow-up letter was sent by Engle to plaintiff on February 7, 1997, stating: "It was my opinion that a conclusion could not be reached as to whether the widening of State Route 60 Maple Avenue in Zanesville and the coinciding removal of the trees from your property is [sic] responsible for the damages your property is experiencing. Due to the extreme length of time involved between the actual project and the difficulties your residence is incurring, any number of structural or environmental factors could also be to blame";

9. Plaintiff maintains that defendant is responsible for damages to her property under the theories of negligence and nuisance;

10. Defendant argued that plaintiff's claims are barred by the statute of limitations and, further, that no act or omission on the part of defendant caused any of plaintiff's claimed damages.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. "[C]ivil actions against the state permitted by sections 2743.01 to 2743.20 of the Revised Code shall be commenced no later than two years after the date of accrual of the cause of action or within any shorter period that is applicable to similar suits between private parties." R.C. 2743.16(A);

2. In Brown v. S. Ohio Corr. Facility (1991), 62 Ohio Misc.2d 337, at 341, 598 N.E.2d 909, at 911, this court discussed the application of R.C. 2743.16(A) to continuous nuisance cases as follows:

"There is authority for the proposition that, ordinarily, a statute of limitations does not run against a nuisance that is continuous, or when a nuisance had gradually become worse with the passing of time. This is based upon the theory that every continuation of a nuisance constitutes a new nuisance. See, e.g., 72 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d (1987), Nuisances, Section 26, at 412-414, and those inapposite cases cited in footnotes 10 through 18.

"However, the law on this particular issue is plain and is set forth in R.C. 2743.16(A), as follows: 'Subject to division (B) of this section, civil actions against the state permitted by sections 2743.01 to 2743.20 of the Revised Code shall be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT