# Baker v. Wayne Cty. (Slip Opinion)

> Ohio Supreme Court · April 19, 2016 · 147 Ohio St. 3d 51

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9822756

## Case

- **Full name:** Baker Et Al., Appellees, v. Wayne County Et Al., Appellants
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 19, 2016
- **Citations:** 147 Ohio St. 3d 51; 60 N.E.3d 1214; 2016 Ohio 1566
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by O'Neill
- **Judges:** Kennedy, Lanzinger, French, O'Connor, Pfeifer, O'Neill, Ninth
- **Cited by:** 11 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9822756

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9822756. Public record. Not legal advice.