Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What I'm suggesting is the Ohio Supreme Court could find some implied homeowner duty (or liability) somewhere else in Ohio statues and would reverse the two lower court decisions which currently hold the homeowner blameless.
If this comes to pass the Ohio Supreme Court would be making 'case law'. What actually 'happens' is the OSC would remand the case back to the lower courts for them to adjudicate based on the OSC's decision/finding (and likely hold the homeowner liable based on the OSC's decision reversing the earlier courts).
Watch the oral argument video I posted the link plaintiff is just asking for an exemption from case law. I suspect they will side with the home owner like trial court, and appeals court. The speed limit being 55 still doesn't make it safe to drive that fast when roads are icy. I don't understand why they would allow speeds that high though those row of homes. Even in rural farming areas where homes are built on each side of long straight roads will reduce speeds to 30 mph though those homes then back up to 55 mph.
You might want to go back to the post earlier today by Dubble T and check the links he posted. Quite clearly, the "ownership" of the ROW depends on how the ROW was established. In some, perhaps many, situations, the ROW is owned in fee simple by the government entity. Even in the instances where the property owner owns to the center of the road, that ownership is basically worthless because it doesn't confer any special rights to the abutting property owner. They are only permitted to erect very limited structures, if any, such as a flimsy mailbox for receiving mail. Oh yes, they are permitted to cut the grass.
You still are missing the point - the homeowner OWNs the property that the mailbox sat on - you repeatedly said they didn't. Ownership and ROW rights are different, you seem to want to equate ROW as ownership, they are not the same - some ownership rights trump a ROW and some ROW rights trump ownership. What they can do with the ROW is a different issue and varies by jurisdiction and implementation. The info linked by DT does not conflict with what i posted.
Also, nowhere is it required that they must erect a "flimsy mailbox" - that may be your opinion but not a current legal requirement. Essentially, that is what is being decided, should there have been that requirement and was the consequences a foreseeable event.
Watch the oral argument video I posted the link plaintiff is just asking for an exemption from case law. I suspect they will side with the home owner like trial court, and appeals court. The speed limit being 55 still doesn't make it safe to drive that fast when roads are icy. I don't understand why they would allow speeds that high though those row of homes. Even in rural farming areas where homes are built on each side of long straight roads will reduce speeds to 30 mph though those homes then back up to 55 mph.
Thanks kell490, I agree with you. I think the 'case law' the plaintiff is asking about is around the prior 'Turner' decisions which supports the homeowner's position. Should the Ohio Supreme Court reverse then we would have some new 'case law' on the books (at least in these circumstances). Like you I don't think that's likely but you just never know.
The speed factor is puzzling to me as well. Reducing the speed limit to 30 mph (and assuming the driver heeded the limit) could have prevented this tragedy too (and likely others if kids are playing in those yards).
You still are missing the point - the homeowner OWNs the property that the mailbox sat on - you repeatedly said they didn't. Ownership and ROW rights are different, you seem to want to equate ROW as ownership, they are not the same - some ownership rights trump a ROW and some ROW rights trump ownership. What they can do with the ROW is a different issue and varies by jurisdiction and implementation. The info linked by DT does not conflict with what i posted.
Also, nowhere is it required that they must erect a "flimsy mailbox" - that may be your opinion but not a current legal requirement. Essentially, that is what is being decided, should there have been that requirement and was the consequences a foreseeable event.
It's not about a requirement to make a breakaway mailbox, although the legislature can take that up later...It's about whether or not you're liable if a mail-fortress causes damages beyond what a normal mailbox would cause.
It's kind of like shoveling a driveway. You are under no legal obligation to remedy your icy driveway in the winter, but you are liable if someone slips and breaks an elbow on it.
Watch the oral argument video I posted the link plaintiff is just asking for an exemption from case law. I suspect they will side with the home owner like trial court, and appeals court. The speed limit being 55 still doesn't make it safe to drive that fast when roads are icy. I don't understand why they would allow speeds that high though those row of homes. Even in rural farming areas where homes are built on each side of long straight roads will reduce speeds to 30 mph though those homes then back up to 55 mph.
He lost the case right there IMO
Asking for “special relief”, a one-off exception to state case law is not going to win an argument with the Supreme Court or with the lower courts
He has to cite and prove how the law is wrong — under legal parameters—not just that his client doesn’t like it…
Lawyer just promised his client more than he can deliver
And I didn’t listen to the oral argument but I imagine this attorney is not the attorney for his car insurance but one the driver hired personally. Based on law I imagine his own insurance might have refused to cough up any more than minimum if that since driver likely was cited for excessive speed
The Plaintiff is going to lose this case as they lost control of their vehicle, entered the other persons property and happened to strike something solid that the defendent is under no obligation to make to some weak standard.
Only remaining thought is that the plaintiff (not sure if this is a jury trial) is seeking some sort of jury that will hand out cash just to help them or stick it to the insurance company etc. etc. without concern for the law. We can laugh but I have seen cases more egregious than this that lead to settlements because they managed to get a jury trial in certain parts of the country that are sought after by all trial lawyers. (Poor, very uneducated, dislike insurance companies, corrupt etc.)
It's kind of like shoveling a driveway. You are under no legal obligation to remedy your icy driveway in the winter, but you are liable if someone slips and breaks an elbow on it.
From an Ohio legal perspective, it seems that if you don't have to worry about telling a guest who's planning to visit about a ice-covered, snow-obscured sidewalk leading into your house I'll infer that you probably don't have to worry too much about your mailbox in your front yard (and how it might interact with unplanned 'visitors') either.
Right, Brinkman v. Ross was the case I had in mind, as I've known about that case for years from reading Ohio Jurisprudence volumes at the law library. I was inquisitive about it many years ago and decided to find some case law on it.
My sympathies to the driver, but this case shouldn't exist. A driver cannot sue a property owner for having a tree, wall, or foundation to crash into, so why any other normal, fixed object?
Cases like this are usually a Hail Mary attempt to recoup money so he does not ruin his life with medical bills.
But if you are going to have a system in which normal working Americans are at risk of generational family destroying medical debt, you are going to have piles of court cases in which other normal working Americans are sued for obscene amounts of money because they dared to have a sturdy mailbox.
The lawyers, insurance companies, and for-profit hospitals are laughing all the way to the bank.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
