Ohio Administrative Code Title 5501:2 - Division of Highways
Overview: Ohio Administrative Code Title 5501:2 - Division of Highways
The Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Title 5501:2 pertains to the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), specifically the Division of Highways. This division is responsible for the planning, construction, maintenance, and management of the state highway system in Ohio. The rules set forth in this title govern everything from highway design standards, right-of-way acquisition, construction procedures, traffic control, to safety regulations.
Key Areas Covered in Title 5501:2
General Provisions and Definitions
This section defines terminology used throughout the rules, including terms like "right-of-way," "highway construction," "maintenance," and "traffic control devices."
Highway Planning and Design
Procedures and standards for highway planning.
Design criteria for roadways, bridges, and other infrastructure.
Environmental and safety considerations.
Right-of-Way Acquisition
Rules governing the acquisition of land or property needed for highway construction or expansion.
Procedures for negotiation, condemnation, and compensation.
Construction and Maintenance
Specifications and standards for highway construction.
Maintenance protocols to ensure highway safety and usability.
Traffic Control Devices
Guidelines for the installation, maintenance, and regulation of traffic signs, signals, and markings.
Safety and Inspection
Standards for inspection of highways and structures.
Safety protocols to protect workers and the public.
Detailed Explanation of Select Provisions
1. Right-of-Way Acquisition (OAC 5501:2-xx)
Purpose: To enable ODOT to legally acquire necessary land for public highway use.
Process: Includes notice to property owners, offers for purchase, and condemnation proceedings if negotiations fail.
Compensation: Property owners are entitled to "just compensation," usually fair market value.
Relevant Case Law:
State ex rel. McConnell v. Burt, 118 Ohio St. 1 (1928):
The Ohio Supreme Court held that condemnation for public use is constitutional, but compensation must be just and fair.
This case affirms that property owners cannot be deprived of property without due process and fair compensation under the Ohio Constitution.
State ex rel. Burns v. Deters, 74 Ohio St.3d 518 (1996):
Confirmed the authority of the Ohio Department of Transportation to acquire property through eminent domain for highway projects, emphasizing the procedural safeguards in the OAC.
2. Highway Construction and Maintenance (OAC 5501:2-xx)
Construction Standards: The OAC provides detailed specifications for materials, workmanship, and methods.
Maintenance: Regular inspection and repair schedules to ensure road safety.
Relevant Case Law:
City of Cleveland v. State, 83 Ohio St.3d 275 (1998):
The court held the state liable for negligent maintenance leading to hazardous road conditions.
Emphasizes ODOT’s duty to maintain highways to prevent accidents.
Estate of Smith v. Ohio Dept. of Transportation, 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 18817 (2002):
Clarified that while the department has a duty to maintain highways, it is not an insurer of safety.
The case highlighted the limits of government liability under OAC provisions.
3. Traffic Control Devices (OAC 5501:2-xx)
Rules require compliance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
Includes installation and maintenance standards for traffic signals, signs, and pavement markings.
Relevant Case Law:
Jones v. Ohio Department of Transportation, 69 Ohio App.3d 693 (1990):
The court ruled that improper or absent traffic control devices can create liability for ODOT if it leads to accidents.
This case stresses the importance of adherence to the OAC and MUTCD.
Summary of Legal Principles
OAC Title 5501:2 empowers the Division of Highways to manage state roads but requires adherence to fair procedures and safety standards.
Eminent domain and right-of-way acquisition must follow constitutional due process with just compensation.
ODOT holds a duty to maintain safe highways and proper traffic control, but its liability is bounded by governmental immunity doctrines.
Case law balances public need for transportation infrastructure against individual rights and safety considerations.
RELATED Blog
0 comments