OAK HARBOR STANDARD NOTES MANUAL
Indeed, the lack of signage prior to and at the intersection of Benton Street and Christiansen Road directly violates mandatory provisions of the Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. Defendants' duty with respect to the signage at the scene is set in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways.Ħ1. The failure to repair the sign at the intersection of Benton Street and Christiansen Road was not decision that required a high degree of official discretion.Ħ0.
OAK HARBOR STANDARD NOTES HOW TO
Defendants conduct with respect to their duty of care to keep public roads in repair or to remove obstructions was not a result of the exercise of judgment or discretion in determining whether to acquire, or how to use, equipment, supplies, materials, personnel, facilities and other resources.ĥ9. Defendants' conduct with respect to their duty of care to keep public roads in repair or to remove obstructions was not within the discretion of the employee with respect to policy-making, planning or enforcement powers by virtue of the duties and responsibilities of the office or position of the employee.ĥ8. Defendants' breach caused Plaintiff to suffer serious injuries to his property and person and such damages included mental anguish, pain and suffering.ĥ7. Defendants' conduct herein was negligence per se.ĥ6. Defendants breached that duty of care.ĥ5. In particular, Defendant Ottawa County is statutorily responsible for maintaining the subject roads. In particular, on information and belief, Defendant Salem Township and Defendant Village of Oak Harbor undertook to maintain and failed to maintain the signage and the area surrounding the accident site.ĥ3.
Defendants undertook a duty of care when they maintained the area surrounding the accident site, including without limitation the proper signage or lack thereof.ĥ2. Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty of care to keep public roads in repair and to afford the public a safe means of travel.ĥ1. Plaintiff incorporates his prior allegations.ĥ0. In the Amended Complaint, under the sole count of negligence, Plaintiff asserts:Ĥ9.
OAK HARBOR STANDARD NOTES INSTALL
Plaintiff, a Canadian citizen, brings negligence claims against Defendants for failure to maintain the left turn arrow sign and failure to install additional warning signs leading up to the turn.
This fact is disputed by Defendants and is discussed further below. Plaintiff was taken to the hospital for treatment, and subsequently transferred to another hospital. 10, at 5) see also Keeton deposition, Doc. Keeton testified he noticed the arrow on the road sign pointed down, rather than to the left, due to a missing bolt. A passerby, David Keeton, traveling north on North Benton Street at approximately 4:30 p.m., came across Plaintiff, unconscious, "dragged the motorcycle off of Plaintiff", "dragged Plaintiff to the side of the road", and called emergency services. There was not a sign warning of the turn on North Benton Street, but there was the aforementioned sign at the intersection which ostensibly showed an arrow pointed down at the time of the accident. As he drove over the tracks, he was surprised by the sharp turn, lost control of his bike, and crashed. Plaintiff saw a sign with an arrow pointing down on the other side of the tracks, which he presumed had to do with the railroad system. On the other side was a 90-degree left turn in which North Benton Street dead-ended into Christiansen Road. Plaintiff was riding his motorcycle at approximately fifteen miles per hour and traveling northbound on North Benton Street approaching a set of railroad tracks which were raised up on a hill, impairing his ability to see on the other side of the tracks. on April 12, 2015, in the Village of Oak Harbor. Plaintiff sustained injuries from a single-vehicle accident occurring at approximately 4:00 p.m.
Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the background of this case is as follows. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the motions for summary judgment. The parties consented to the undersigned's exercise of jurisdiction in accordance with 28 U.S.C. Plaintiff Steve Livneh ("Plaintiff") filed opposition to each. Pending before the Court are three separate motions for summary judgment, filed by Defendants Village of Oak Harbor (Docs. Knepp, II MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION
0 kommentar(er)
