Opinion

Baker v. Wayne Cty. (Slip Opinion)

  • 147 Ohio St. 3d 51
  • 60 N.E.3d 1214
  • 2016 Ohio 1566
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Apr 19, 2016
Status
Published
Author
O'Neill
On the bench
Kennedy, Lanzinger, French, O'Connor, Pfeifer, O'Neill, Ninth
Cited by
11 cases

The opinion

O’Neill, J.,

dissenting.

{¶ 33} Respectfully, I must dissent.

{¶ 34} The lead opinion employs the kind of judicial metaphysics that gave rise to the term “legal fiction.” It is simply make-believe to suggest that the portion of the asphalt that dropped off five inches to meet the berm on the side of the road is not also a part of the road. It is like saying that the period at the end of this sentence is not a part of the sentence. The court can use any Aristotelian definition of a road it wants. But the five inches of asphalt that define the outer edge of the road caused this accident — not the mud next to it.

{¶ 35} Thus, I dissent.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.