(A) Local authorities in their respective jurisdictions shall place and maintain traffic control devices in accordance with the department of transportation manual for a uniform system of traffic control devices, adopted under section 4511.09 of the Revised Code, upon highways under their jurisdiction as are necessary to indicate and to carry out sections 4511.01 to 4511.76 and 4511.99 of the Revised Code, local traffic ordinances, or to regulate, warn, or guide traffic.
(B) The director of transportation may require to be removed any traffic control device that does not conform to the manual for a uniform system of traffic control devices on the extensions of the state highway system within municipal corporations.
(C) No village shall place or maintain any highway traffic signal upon an extension of the state highway system within the village without first obtaining the permission of the director. The director may revoke the permission and may require to be removed any highway traffic signal that has been erected without the director's permission on an extension of a state highway within a village, or that, if erected under a permit granted by the director, does not conform to the state manual, or that is not operated in accordance with the terms of the permit.
(D) All traffic control devices erected on any street, highway, alley, bikeway, or site roadway open to public travel shall conform to the state manual.
(E) No person, firm, or corporation shall sell or offer for sale to local authorities any traffic control device that does not conform to the state manual, except by permission of the director.
(F) No local authority shall purchase or manufacture any traffic control device that does not conform to the state manual, except by permission of the director.
(G) Whoever violates division (E) of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the third degree.
Dayton v. State (Slip Opinion), 2017-Ohio-6909. · cites it 3ד23 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 58} Today’s lead and concurring opinions only add to the confusion.”
Bibler v. Stevenson (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-8449, 80 N.E.3d 424. · cites it 4ד{¶ 13} R.C. 4511.11(A) provides: Local authorities in their respective jurisdictions shall place and maintain traffic control devices in accordance with the department of transportation manual of uniform system of traffic control devices, adopted under section 4511.”
State ex rel. Ohio Motorists Assn. v. Masten, 456 N.E.2d 567 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1982). · cites it 11דR.C. 4511.11 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “(A) Local authorities in their respective jurisdictions shall place and maintain traffic control devices in accordance with the department of transportation manual and specifications for a uniform system of traffic control…”
Power v. Boles, 673 N.E.2d 617 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1996). · cites it 7דIn this case, construing the evidence in favor of appellants, reasonable minds could conclude that appellee breached two duties: the generally applicable duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances, and the duty under R.C. 4511.11(A) to adhere to a mandatory…”
City of Maple Heights v. Smith, 722 N.E.2d 607 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1999). · cites it 6ד” R.C. 4511.11: “(A) Local authorities in their respective jurisdictions shall place and maintain traffic control devices in accordance with the department of transportation manual and specifications for a uniform system of traffic control devices, adopted under section 4511.”
Winwood v. City of Dayton, 525 N.E.2d 808 (Ohio 1988). · cites it 2דThis manual, which sets forth the standards for the installation and maintenance of traffic control devices in this state, is binding upon local authorities by virtue of R.C. 4511.11. 1 Section 1C of the manual provides in pertinent part: *285 “The decision to use a particular…”
Perkins v. Ohio Dep't of Transp., 584 N.E.2d 794 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1989). · cites it 2דWhere a manual provision states that signs “shall” be posted at given locations, the qualification “as are necessary” found in R.C. 4511.11 in Section 2M-3 of the manual must be interpreted to mean “as are mandated” pursuant to the manual.”
Zimmerman v. St. Peter's Catholic Church, 622 N.E.2d 1184 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1993). · cites it 4ד2d 808 , held that the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and its provisions have the force of law pursuant to R.C. 4511.11. Tiley v. Baltimore & Ohio RR.”
Pierce v. Ohio Dep't of Transp., 491 N.E.2d 729 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1985). · cites it 3דAppellants submit that the applicable standard of care to determine whether the trustees have fulfilled their obligations under R.C. 4511.11 or have been negligent with respect thereto is established by the Department of Transportation manual, which is incorporated into the…”
Royce v. Smith, 429 N.E.2d 134 (Ohio 1981). · cites it 2ד” The county engineer argues that because he “has no power to establish police regulations * * * [, he] is not a ‘local authority’ within the meaning of Section 4511.11.” We agree. Appellants’ claims against the county engineer, to the extent they are predicated on a breach of R.”
White v. Ohio Dep't of Transp., 564 N.E.2d 462 (Ohio 1990). “Based on Section 2F-1 of the MUTCD, the court of *42 appeals held that ODOT has a duty to cut roadside foliage along county and township roads intersecting state highways, where the foliage obstructs the view of traffic signs which ODOT is required to maintain.”
Franks v. Lopez, 632 N.E.2d 502 (Ohio 1994). “Moreover, it is undisputed that the directional arrow sign did not comply with the Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways as required by R.”
Bibler v. Stevenson (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-8449, 80 N.E.3d 424. “{¶ 13} R.C. 4511.11(A) provides: Local authorities in their respective jurisdictions shall place and maintain traffic control devices in accordance with the department of transportation manual of uniform system of traffic control devices, adopted under section 4511.”
Dayton v. State (Slip Opinion), 2017-Ohio-6909. “23 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 58} Today’s lead and concurring opinions only add to the confusion.”
Power v. Boles, 673 N.E.2d 617 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1996). “In this case, construing the evidence in favor of appellants, reasonable minds could conclude that appellee breached two duties: the generally applicable duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances, and the duty under R.C. 4511.11(A) to adhere to a mandatory…”
State ex rel. Ohio Motorists Assn. v. Masten, 456 N.E.2d 567 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1982). “R.C. 4511.11 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “(A) Local authorities in their respective jurisdictions shall place and maintain traffic control devices in accordance with the department of transportation manual and specifications for a uniform system of traffic control…”
City of Maple Heights v. Smith, 722 N.E.2d 607 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1999). “” R.C. 4511.11: “(A) Local authorities in their respective jurisdictions shall place and maintain traffic control devices in accordance with the department of transportation manual and specifications for a uniform system of traffic control devices, adopted under section 4511.”
Perkins v. Ohio Dep't of Transp., 584 N.E.2d 794 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1989). “Where a manual provision states that signs “shall” be posted at given locations, the qualification “as are necessary” found in R.C. 4511.11 in Section 2M-3 of the manual must be interpreted to mean “as are mandated” pursuant to the manual.”
City of Maple Heights v. Smith, 722 N.E.2d 607 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1999). “” R.C. 4511.11: “(A) Local authorities in their respective jurisdictions shall place and maintain traffic control devices in accordance with the department of transportation manual and specifications for a uniform system of traffic control devices, adopted under section 4511.”
Zimmerman v. St. Peter's Catholic Church, 622 N.E.2d 1184 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1993). “2d 808 , held that the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and its provisions have the force of law pursuant to R.C. 4511.11. Tiley v. Baltimore & Ohio RR.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.