Kareth v. Toyota Motor Sales, Unpublished Decision (8-28-1998)
Kareth v. Toyota Motor Sales, Unpublished Decision (8-28-1998)
Opinion of the Court
Plaintiff-appellant, Pauline R. Kareth, administratrix of the estate of Beth Ann Kareth ("the decedent"), appeals from a decision of the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas dismissing a complaint against defendants-appellees, Clermont County Board of Commissioners ("Commissioners"). We affirm.
On March 5, 1993, the decedent was killed as a result of a single car accident on State Route 133 in Williamsburg Township, Clermont County, Ohio. The decedent was killed when her automobile went off the west side of State Route 133 while she was proceeding down a hill and struck an embankment. A "T" intersection of State Route 133 and Twin Bridges Road, a county road, was located near the accident scene.
On March 6, 1995, appellant filed a complaint with claims against the Commissioners and the director of the Ohio Department of Transportation ("ODOT"). On May 3, 1995, appellant voluntarily dismissed her claim against ODOT. On January 16, 1996, appellant voluntarily dismissed her claim against the Commissioners.
Appellant subsequently filed an amended complaint against ODOT in the Ohio Court of Claims. On February 21, 1996, appellant also filed an amended complaint against the Commissioners in the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas. On January 15, 1997, appellant filed a second amended complaint against the Commissioners. The second amended complaint alleged that as a result of the Commissioners negligence and failure to keep Twin Bridges Road in repair and free from nuisance, surface water drained onto or flowed across State Route 133 thereby creating a hazardous condition that proximately caused the decedent's accident.
The Commissioners filed an answer to the second amended complaint on February 28, 1997. On April 4, 1997, the Commissioners filed a Civ.R. 12(C) motion for judgment on the pleadings. On December 29, 1997, the trial court issued a decision finding that the Commissioners were immune from liability and granting the Commissioners' motion for judgment on the pleadings. On appeal, appellant assigns a single assignment of error, asserting that the trial court erred by granting the Commissioners' motion for judgment on the pleadings.
A motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Civ.R. 12(C) only raises questions of law that must be determined by consideration of the pleadings. State ex rel. Midwest Pride IV, Inc. v. Pontious (1996),
R.C. Chapter 2744, the Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act, was enacted in response to the judicial abolishment of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. R.C.
(3) Political subdivisions are liable for injury, death, or loss to persons or property caused by their failure to keep public roads, highways, streets, avenues, alleys, sidewalks, bridges, * * * or public grounds within the political subdivisions open, in repair, and free from nuisance, * * *.
(5) * * * [A] political subdivision is liable for injury, death, or loss to persons or property when liability is expressly imposed upon the political subdivision by a section of the Revised Code, * * *. Liability shall not be construed to exist under another section of the Revised Code merely because a responsibility is imposed upon a political subdivision or because of a general authorization that a political subdivision may sue and be sued.
Appellant first asserts that the Commissioners are not immune from liability because the exception contained in R.C.
The Supreme Court of Ohio has "refused to extend a political subdivision's liability to areas outside its territorial limits" reasoning that the political subdivision lacks possession and control of such areas. Simpson v. Big Bear Stores, Co. (1995),
In the present case, it is undisputed that the decedent's accident occurred on a state highway, State Route 133. Further, the second amended complaint alleged that the decedent's accident was proximately caused by a hazardous condition or nuisance, an accumulation of surface water, that was located on the state highway. ODOT has a duty to maintain and repair state highways. White v. Ohio Dept. of Transportation (1990),
Appellant also asserts that the Commissioners are not immune from liability because the exception to immunity contained in R.C.
Appellant argues that R.C.
The board of county commissioners may sue and be sued * * * in any court. It may bring, maintain, and defend suits involving an injury to any public, state, or county road, bridge, ditch, drain, or watercourse in the county with respect to which the county has the primary responsibility to keep in proper repair, and for the prevention of injury to them. * * *
R.C.
Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that the Commissioners were immune from liability and entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Therefore, the trial court properly granted the Commissioners' motion for judgment on the pleadings and appellant's sole assignment of error is overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
WALSH, J., concurs.
KOEHLER, J., dissenting.
Dissenting Opinion
The county had responsibility to prevent the drainage from Twin Bridges Road from creating a hazardous condition. Whether that hazard was located exclusively on a county roadway or, as in this case, upon a state highway would not allow the county to avoid its obligation to persons who encounter the dangerous condition.
The causal connection between the county's failure to properly maintain its drainage system and the nuisance created by such failure is without question. The transitory nature of the drainage in this cause precludes the county from obtaining immunity.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. The trial court erred in granting the county a judgment on the pleadings.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.