Go Syfert

Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 5589.06 (2026)

Obstructing ditch, drain, or watercourse - duty of superintendent

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Effective:

October 1, 1953

Latest Legislation:

House Bill 1 - 100th General Assembly

PDF:

Download Authenticated PDF

No person shall wrongfully obstruct any ditch, drain, or watercourse along, upon, or across a public highway, or divert any water from adjacent lands to or upon a public highway. Whenever the township highway superintendent learns of any obstruction of any ditch, drain, or watercourse along, upon, or across a public highway, or diversion of any water from adjacent lands to or upon a public highway, he shall notify the board of township trustees, which shall cause written notice thereof to be personally served upon the person, firm, or corporation, or upon any agent in charge of the property of the person, firm, or corporation causing such obstruction or diversion. Notice may be served by a constable of the proper township or any person authorized and deputed therefor by the board of township trustees, and shall describe and locate said obstruction or diversion and direct its immediate removal. If the person, company, or corporation does not within five days from the receipt of written notice proceed to remove such obstruction and complete the removal within a reasonable time, the township highway superintendent, upon the order of the board of township trustees, shall remove the obstruction. The expense incurred shall be paid in the first instance out of any money levied, collected, and available for highway purposes and shall then be collected from the person, company, or corporation by civil action by the board of township trustees, and paid into the highway fund of the township.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1990–2024 · leading case: Becker v. Shaull, 584 N.E.2d 684 (Ohio 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Becker v. Shaull, 584 N.E.2d 684 (Ohio 1992). · cites it 9× “The main issue before this court is whether the trial court committed prejudicial error in failing to instruct the jury as requested with respect to R.C. 5589.06. More specifically, we are confronted with the question of whether an individual is negligent per se in altering or…”

Berge v. Columbus Cmty. Cable Access, 736 N.E.2d 517 (Ohio Ct. App. 1999). “2d 684, 686 (finding no negligence per se when alleged violated statute, R.C. 5589.06, lacked the specificity required to impose negligence per se upon the finding of a violation).”

Ogle v. Kelly, 629 N.E.2d 495 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993). “2d 684 , the Ohio Supreme Court determined that R.C. 5589.06, which similarly provides that “[n]o person shall wrongfully obstruct any ditch, drain or watercourse * * * across a public highway,” was a general rule of conduct rather than a specific safety statute rendering the…”

Gonzalez v. Henceroth Enter., Inc., 735 N.E.2d 68 (Ohio Ct. App. 1999). “2d 684, 686-687 , the Ohio Supreme Court held that R.C. 5589.06, which provides that “ ‘[n]o person shall wrongfully obstruct any ditch, drain, or watercourse along, upon, or across a public highway,’ ” was a statute setting forth a general duty, rather than a specific one.”

Becker v. Shaull, 7 Ohio App. Unrep. 135 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 6× “II "THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR IN FAILING TO GIVE AN INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY ON THE ISSUE OF NUISANCE WHEN THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE DEFENDANTS ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND CHANGED A PRE-EXISTING DITCH, CAUSING WATER RUN-OFF ONTO THE ROADWAY WHICH…”

Erie Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Dunn, 2024 Ohio 5973 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “Assignment of Error Number 5 In their fifth assignment of error, appellants assert that the trial court’s finding that the Defendant’s [sic] have violated - intentionally - R.C. 5589.06 by blocking the Culvert building a dam, and refusing an easement to divert water from their…”

King v. Miami Cnty. Ohio Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners (In Re Child.'s Home Cnty. Ditch), 2018 Ohio 3810 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “Baker testified that Plaintiff's Exhibit 9 further reflected that Benham installed tile without a permit on his property, potentially in violation of R.C. 5589.06. According to Plaintiff's Exhibit 9, "Spur # 3 is necessary to connect an existing field tile Mr.”

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.