Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio held that utility companies were not required to obtain permission from the township or county engineer to leave a utility pole in its existing location after a road-widening project. The court further held that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that the pole interfered with the usual and ordinary course of travel. It reversed the Eighth District Court of Appeals and remanded for entry of judgment for the utility companies.
Holdings
- R.C. 4931.03 did not require CEI or FirstEnergy to obtain permission or a permit from the township board of trustees or county engineer to leave the utility pole in its existing location. Absent a resolution or other affirmative legal action by the township seeking to revoke permission, no applicable Ohio law required relocation.
- The evidence was legally insufficient to establish that the pole interfered with the usual and ordinary course of travel on Savage Road. Because the pole was outside the improved portion of the roadway and there was no evidence that a motorist using the improved roadway would ordinarily encounter it, CEI and FirstEnergy could not be held liable under Turner.
Questions Presented
- Whether R.C. 4931.03 required CEI and FirstEnergy to obtain permission or a permit from the township or county engineer to leave an existing utility pole in its location after a road-widening project.
- Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to establish that the utility pole interfered with the usual and ordinary course of travel under the rule announced in Turner v. Ohio Bell Tel. Co.
- Whether CEI and FirstEnergy could be held liable under any theory asserted by the Links based on the pole's location.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (10)
- Turner v. Ohio Bell Tel. Co., 118 Ohio St. 3d 215, 2008-Ohio-2010, 887 N.E.2d 1158(applied)
- Environmental Network Corp. v. Goodman Weiss Miller, L.L.P., 119 Ohio St. 3d 209, 2008-Ohio-3833, 893 N.E.2d 173(applied)
- Continental Ins. Co. v. Whittington, 71 Ohio St. 3d 150, 642 N.E.2d 615 (1994)(applied)
- Toledo Edison Co. v. Bd. of Defiance Cty. Commrs., 2013-Ohio-5374, 4 N.E.3d 458 (3d Dist.)(applied)
- Mfr.'s Natl. Bank of Detroit v. Erie Cty. Rd. Comm., 63 Ohio St. 3d 318, 587 N.E.2d 819 (1992)(applied)
- Steele v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 162 Ohio App. 3d 30, 2005-Ohio-3276, 832 N.E.2d 764(applied)
- Floering v. Roller, 2003-Ohio-5679(applied)
- Swaisgood v. Puder, 2007-Ohio-307(analogized)
- Elster v. Springfield, 49 Ohio St. 82, 30 N.E. 274 (1892)(distinguished_from)
- Bidar v. Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co., 2012-Ohio-3686(not material to majority holding)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…