Update: On November 24, 2021, the Supreme Court of Ohio handed down a merit decision in this case. In a 5-2 opinion written by Chief Justice O’Connor, joined by Justices Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine and Stewart, the Court held that the Burrs owed no duty to Snay under the facts of this case. Justice Donnelly dissented, joined by Justice Brunner.  Read the merit decision here.

On June 16, 2021, the Supreme Court of Ohio will hear oral argument in Cletus Snay, et al. v. Matthew Burr, et al., 2020-1057. At issue in this case is whether a landowner owes a duty to a motorist who strikes the landowner’s off-road reinforced mailbox built close to the edge of a rural roadway.

Case Background

In December 2016, fifty-nine-year-old Cletus Snay had an accident while driving to work in the afternoon. While Snay does not remember the specifics of the accident, his truck apparently hit a patch of black ice, slid off the roadway, and struck the Burrs’ mailbox in the right-of-way less than two feet from the road’s edge before rolling over. A state trooper who arrived on the scene testified that Snay’s truck fishtailed after striking the Burrs’ mailbox, which Matthew Burr had installed himself, using a metal pipe thicker in diameter and buried deeper than recommended by the postal service. Burr installed this reinforced mailbox to prevent vandals from destroying it, as they had done in the past.

Snay sustained serious injuries from the accident and is now a quadriplegic. Snay and his wife filed this action against Burr and his wife in December 2018, seeking damages allegedly caused by the Burrs’ reinforced mailbox. Huron County Common Pleas Court Judge James W. Conway granted the Burrs’ motion for summary judgment, holding that “Ohio law does not impose a duty owed to motorists who lose control of their vehicles, leave the traveled portion of the roadway, and strike an off-the-road object within the right of way.” Judge Conway relied on Turner v. Ohio Bell Tel. Co. in his decision. The Snays appealed.

The Appeal

In a 2-1 decision  authored by Judge Thomas J. Osowik and joined by Judge Arlene Singer, the Sixth District affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The majority held that the Burrs owed no duty to the Snays, reasoning that there was no evidence to suggest that the placement of the mailbox created an unsafe condition for normal travel, had Mr. Snay stayed within the marked lanes of the roadway. The majority also found that the record did not support a finding that the Burrs’ conduct proximately caused Mr. Snay’s injury.

Like the trial court, the majority relied on Turner and other similar cases in finding for the Burrs.  The majority also held that the mailbox was an open and obvious hazard which would obviate any duty on the part of the landowner in this case.

Judge Christine M. Mayle, writing in dissent, would find that the majority overlooked the role of foreseeability in its duty analysis, and that its causation analysis was flawed. Judge Mayle would find that the Burrs owed the Snays a duty under the particular facts of this case, namely, to install their mailbox in a manner unlikely to cause injury. Here, Matthew Burr disregarded postal recommendations about the construction of posts, knew of other accidents along the road at issue, and had actual knowledge of the unreasonably dangerous hazard he built on his property. From this reasonable minds could conclude there was a duty here that was breached. Judge Mayle would also find that reasonable minds could differ on whether the Burrs’ construction of their mailbox was a proximate cause of the injury to Mr. Snay, and that the affidavit of the Snays’ expert supports this conclusion.  Judge Mayle also found Turner and many of the other cases relied on by the majority to be inapplicable to the instant case, primarily because they focused more on utility companies than private landowners.

Key Statutes and Precedent

Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts, Section 368 (1965) (“A possessor of land who creates or permits to remain thereon an excavation or other artificial condition so near an existing highway that he realizes or should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk to others accidentally brought into contact with such condition while traveling with reasonable care upon the highway is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to persons who . . . are traveling on the highway, or . . . foreseeably deviate from it in the ordinary course of travel.”

Shrieve v. United States, 16 F.Supp.2d 853 (N.D. Ohio 1998) (The alleged violation of postal guidelines as to the placement and construction of rural mailboxes does not show negligence per se.)

Strunk v. Dayton Power & Light Co., 6 Ohio St.3d 429 (1983) (Unless an off-road condition renders a road unsafe for usual and ordinary travel, no duty is owed to motorists.)

Murphy v. Corrollton Mfg. Co., 61 Ohio St.3d 585 (1991) (“It is a well-established principle of tort law that an injury may have more than one proximate cause.”)

Mfr.’s Natl. Bank of Detroit v. Erie Cty. Rd. Comm., 63 Ohio St.3d 318 (1992) (“Where an abutting landowner or occupier uses the highway right-of-way in a manner inconsistent with a highway purpose, and where such usage constitutes an unreasonable hazard to users of the highway, the land owner or occupier may be liable for damages proximately caused by the improper use of the right-of-way.”)

Queen City Terminals v. General Am. Transp. Corp., 73 Ohio St.3d 609 (1995) (A defendant’s conduct may be a proximate cause of an injury if there is “some reasonable connection between the act or omission of the defendant and the damage the plaintiff has suffered”; Ohio uses the substantial factor test to determine liability when multiple factors may have caused the injury, and whether or not the conduct was a substantial factor is a question of fact.)

Turner v. Ohio Bell Tel Co., 2008-Ohio-2010 (“When a vehicle collides with a utility pole located off the improved portion of the roadway but within the right-of-way, a public utility is not liable, as a matter of law, if the utility has obtained any necessary permission to install the pole and the pole does not interfere with the usual and ordinary course of travel.”)

Cromer v. Children’s Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Akron, 2015-Ohio-229 (“[T]he existence of duty depends on the foreseeability of injury.”)

Freiburger v. Four Seasons Golf Ctr., 2007-Ohio-2871 (10th Dist.) (A hazard is open and obvious if it is “free from obstruction and readily appreciated by an ordinary person.”)

Votes to Accept the Case

Yes: Chief Justice O’Connor, and Justices Kennedy, Stewart, French, and Donnelly.

No: Justices Fischer and DeWine.

Snays’ Propositions of Law Accepted for Review

PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. 1: Although a landowner may generally owe no duty to errant motorists who strike an off-road hazard, an exception exists giving rise to a duty where the landowner consciously creates a hazardous condition in the right-of-way, in close proximity to the traveled portion of the roadway, with actual knowledge of the danger it presents to motorists who unintentionally, but foreseeably, veer off the traveled portion of the roadway.

PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. 2: The open and obvious doctrine does not apply to obviate a landowner’s duty not to consciously place a hazardous item in the right-of-way in close proximity to the traveled portion of the highway.

PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. 3: An accident reconstructionist’s opinion that plaintiff’s vehicle would not have overturned upon leaving the traveled portion of the roadway “but for” its encounter with a dangerous, unyielding mailbox post is admissible on the issue of proximate cause and is sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact on that issue.

The Snays’ Argument

The Snays concede that generally, a landowner owes no duty to errant motorists, but if the landowner consciously creates a hazard close to a roadway with actual knowledge of its hazardous nature, this constitutes an exception to the general rule and creates a duty due to the foreseeability of the harm. The construction of the mailbox in the right of way was unreasonable and dangerous because of the conscious disregard of the postal guidelines, and the fact that several accidents had occurred at this very portion of the road.  Additionally, the Burrs knew that the narrowness of their road, coupled with the reinforced mailbox, could cause harm to errant motorists. Because of this actual knowledge of the hazardous condition the mailbox created to a motorist who left the roadway, and the foreseeability that a motorist would leave the roadway, a duty existed. This is consistent with the general principles of tort law and particularly proximate cause, as well as being supported by public policy concerns.

As Judge Mayle’s dissent highlights, many of the cases relied on by the majority (including Turner) apply to utility companies and municipalities, and not to individual landowners.

In addition, the Snays argue that the open and obvious doctrine is inapplicable here because Mr. Snay inadvertently left the roadway, and, as a matter of law, the obviousness of the hazard could not be determined in this case. The issue was also not raised or briefed below.

Finally, the Snays argue that the opinion of their expert, an accident reconstructionist, should be admissible as it pertains to proximate cause, and is sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact on that element. In his opinion, the expert testified that Mr. Snay’s truck would not have overturned “but for” the location and the non-breakaway construction of the Burrs’ mailbox. Because an injury may have more than one proximate cause, this testimony should be sufficient to overcome a motion for summary judgment. Finally, the Snays’ proximate cause evidence does not involve the impermissible stacking of inferences.

The Burrs’ Argument

In Ohio, there is a long line of precedent where courts have consistently held that an owner of an off-road object owes no duty to an errant motorist who fails to maintain control of his or her vehicle, leaving the ordinary course of travel, and strikes the off-road object. Primarily, the extent of a landowner’s duties to motorists is to not place hazards on the traveled portion of the road. Placing the mailbox alongside the road creates no duty as such. Unless the off-road condition creates a hazard to motorists traveling in a usual and ordinary manner, no duty exists between landowner and motorist.

The extent of this duty is dictated by numerous cases, and the current law in Ohio comes from Turner. In Turner, the court held that no duty is owed to motorists whose vehicles leave the traveled portion of the road, as was the case here. Thus, the Burrs owed no duty to Mr. Snay whose truck veered off the roadway. The sole cause of this accident was Mr. Snay’s failure to control his truck.

The Burrs posit that foreseeability itself does not create a legal duty. Rather, foreseeability is necessary for a duty to exist, but it is not sufficient in and of itself to create a duty. In this case, the Burrs owed no duty to Mr. Snay.

Student Contributor: Liam McMillin