Legal Opinion
White v. Ohio Department of Transportation
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided December 12, 1990No. Nos. 89-1114 and 89-1115PublishedCited by 124 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtH. Brown, J.
For the reasons which follow, we reverse the judgment of the court below as to ODOT, affirm as to its disposition of the directed verdict, and remand for new trial.
I
Duty to Cut Foliage on Morgan-Ross Road
The Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (“MUTCD”) has been adopted as the state’s official specifications for highway signs and markings pursuant to the mandate of R.C. 4511.09. R.C. 4511.10 requires ODOT to comply with the MUTCD in erecting and maintaining highway signs and markings. Slavick v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. (1988), 44 Ohio App. 3d 19, 22-24, 540…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Smiddy v. Wedding Party, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1987
- O'Day v. WebbOhio Supreme Court · 1972
- Trussell v. General Motors Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1990
- Bush v. Harvey Transfer Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1946
- Royce v. SmithOhio Supreme Court · 1981
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by124 opinions
- Vance v. Consolidated Rail Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1995
- Bell v. HortonOhio Court of Appeals · 1995
- Cunningham v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 08ap-330 (12-30-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008
- Feitshans v. Darke CountyOhio Court of Appeals · 1996
- Dunlap v. W.L. Logan Trucking Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2005
119 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.