Case ID: ohio-law-abs_7/html/0248-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PARDEE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

AKINS v COUNTY COMMISSIONERS et
    Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist, Summit Co
    No 1526.
    Decided Feb 26, 1929
    C G Roetzel, Akron, for Akins.
    Don Isham, Pros Atty, W A Spencer, Asst Pros Atty, A B Underwood, Dir of Law and C B MacDonald, Asst Dir of Law, all of Akron, for Comrs et.
   PARDEE, J.

Giving to plaintiff’s petition an interpretation most favorable to him, it may be said that he claims that a vacant and unimproved lot, which he purchased after a grade had been properly established in front thereof, has been damaged by change of such grade, which change was made by the county commissioners in conformity to law, for the purpose of providing an approach to a county bridge over the Ohio canal, but which change was not made by the city in conformity to the law in reference to the change of grade of city streets, and that by reason of the acts of said commissioners, ingress and egress to his said lot has been rendered difficult and inconvenient, and as a consequence of said improvement, travel which otherwise would pass on the side of said street next to said lot, has been diverted so as to pass on the side opposite to said lot, and on the grade of said approach.

We have re-examined a great many of the reported Ohio cases upon this subject— those cited and others — and we are unanimously of the opinion that in this state a property owner cannot recover damages from a political subdivision of the state for changing, in conformity to law, the established grade of a street in front of privately owned property, unless said property has been improved with reference to said established grade and the grade has been changed to the damage of said improved property.

Funk, PJ, and Washburn, J, concur.