Case Title: Wimmer v. Pub. Util. Comm.

Citation: 2012-Ohio-757

Docket Number: 2011-0563

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2012-02-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Wimmer v. Pub. Util. Comm., Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-757.] 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2012-OHIO-757 
WIMMER ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES  
COMMISSION ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Wimmer v. Pub. Util. Comm.,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-757.] 
Public Utilities—Transmission-line easement—Public Utilities Commission 
decision to remove vegetation in easement was reasonable. 
(No. 2011-0563—Submitted January 17, 2012—Decided February 29, 2012.) 
APPEAL from the Public Utilities Commission, No. 09-777-EL-CSS. 
__________________ 
PFEIFER, J. 
{¶ 1} Kurt Wimmer and the Wimmer Family Trust (“the Wimmers”) 
argue that the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio erred in allowing Ohio Edison 
Company to remove certain trees from a transmission-line easement running over 
the Wimmers’ property.  We disagree and affirm the order of the commission. 
I. Background 
{¶ 2} Ohio Edison owned a transmission-line easement running over the 
Wimmers’ property.  For years, Ohio Edison, in accordance with the company’s 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
general policy, had trimmed, though rarely removed, trees growing in the 
easement.  But that policy changed after several tree-to-line contacts contributed 
to cause a blackout throughout the northeastern United States in 2003.  When the 
company sought to remove the trees in the easement on the Wimmers’ property, 
the family objected. 
{¶ 3} The Wimmers took their complaint to court, where the court of 
common pleas found in favor of Ohio Edison.  On appeal, the court of appeals 
affirmed, concluding that Ohio Edison’s easement permitted it to remove the 
trees.  Wimmer Family Trust v. FirstEnergy, 9th Dist. No. 08CA009392, 2008-
Ohio-6870, ¶ 16.  We vacated that judgment “on the authority of Corrigan v. 
Illum. Co., 122 Ohio St.3d 265, 2009-Ohio-2524, 910 N.E.2d 1009.”  Wimmer 
Family Trust v. FirstEnergy Corp., 123 Ohio St.3d 144, 2009-Ohio-4304, 914 
N.E.2d 1036, ¶ 1.  In Corrigan, we held that the utility’s easement permitted tree 
removal but that the commission, not a court, was required to decide whether 
removal was reasonable.  Corrigan at ¶ 19, 21. 
{¶ 4} The Wimmers then took their complaint to the commission.  After 
an evidentiary hearing, the commission ruled in Ohio Edison’s favor and 
permitted it to remove the trees.  Wimmer v. Ohio Edison Co., Pub. Util. Comm. 
No. 09-777-EL-CSS (Jan. 27, 2011).The Wimmers appealed to this court, and 
Ohio Edison has intervened in defense of the order. 
II. Discussion 
A. The Wimmers’ first two propositions are settled. 
{¶ 5} The first two propositions of the Wimmers’ brief predominantly 
address interpretation of the easement held by Ohio Edison.  Those issues were 
not before the commission and are not relevant here because they were settled in 
an earlier proceeding. 
{¶ 6} As noted above, this is the second time that the Wimmers’ case has 
reached this court.  They filed their first complaint in the court of common pleas, 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
whose decision in favor of Ohio Edison was affirmed by the court of appeals.  We 
disposed of their case on the authority of Corrigan.  Wimmer Family Trust at ¶ 1.  
Corrigan involved a utility-landowner dispute over whether a tree should be 
removed or pruned.  We held that there was “no question that the company has a 
valid easement,” that “the tree is within the easement,” and that the easement 
“grants the company the right to remove any tree within the easement that could 
pose a threat to the transmission lines.”  Id. at ¶ 17 and 19. 
{¶ 7} By disposing of the Wimmers’ earlier litigation on the authority of 
Corrigan, this court decided the easement issues in favor of Ohio Edison.  As in 
Corrigan, the utility’s easement over the Wimmers’ property expressly permits 
the removal of trees.  It grants the utility “the right to trim, remove, or control 
* * * trees * * * as may interfere with or endanger” the utility’s transmission 
lines.  Even so, the Wimmers argue that their easement does not permit tree 
removal.  We consider that issue settled.  See S.Ct.Prac.R. 11.2(A) (motions for 
reconsideration must be filed within ten days of the filing of the judgment entry or 
order).  Moreover, even had the issue remained live after our earlier decision, it is 
quite clear that the utility’s easement permits the removal of trees. 
B. Evidence supported the commission’s decision. 
{¶ 8} We thus turn to the issue that is properly presented here: whether 
the commission erred in finding that removal of the Wimmers’ trees was 
reasonable.  The Wimmers argue that Ohio Edison failed to present evidence that 
their trees “may interfere with or endanger the utility’s transmission lines.”  In 
their view, the proffered evidence “was long on Ohio Edison’s fear and 
speculation and short on hard facts.” 
{¶ 9} Contrary to these assertions, evidence was presented that supported 
the order.  The commission found that “the vegetation in question has the genetic 
disposition to grow to heights tall enough to potentially interfere with the * * * 
line.”  Wimmer, Pub. Util. Comm. No. 09-777-EL-CSS, at 9.  The commission 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
also found that Ohio Edison “reasonably determined that this vegetation may 
interfere or threaten to interfere with the transmission line and should be 
removed.”  Id.  These findings were supported by the expert testimony of Rebecca 
Spach, who described the trees growing in the right-of-way and explained that 
“the average mature heights are well above the height of the [line].”  Indeed, 
Spach explained that even with continuous trimming and pruning, at least one tree 
had already grown to within four feet of the line, in violation of the National 
Electric Safety Code, which is published by the Institute of Electrical and 
Electronics Engineers and sets the industry-accepted safety standards. 
{¶ 10} The Wimmers do not challenge the admission of Spach’s 
testimony on any ground, nor do they challenge her qualification as an expert.  
They do not adduce any contrary testimony or difficulty on cross-examination 
that would call her testimony into question.  And they present no argument or 
factual support for their assertion that her testimony was speculative.  On the 
contrary, Spach personally observed the trees in the right-of-way.  The average 
mature height and growth rate of those trees is also a matter of observation, not 
guesswork.  Accordingly, the commission’s decision is not—as the Wimmers 
must show—“ ‘so clearly unsupported by the record as to show misapprehension, 
mistake, or willful disregard of duty.’ ”  Monongahela Power Co. v. Pub. Util. 
Comm., 104 Ohio St.3d 571, 2004-Ohio-6896, 820 N.E.2d 921, ¶ 29, quoting 
AT&T Communications of Ohio, Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 88 Ohio St.3d 549, 
555, 728 N.E.2d 371 (2000). 
{¶ 11} Because the Wimmers do not show any error in the commission’s 
order, we must affirm.  We note with approval the commission’s admonition that 
Ohio Edison “attempt to minimize the impact to property owners, to the extent 
possible and without sacrificing safety and reliability, when performing [utility-
vegetation-management] activities.”  Wimmer, Pub. Util. Comm. No. 09-777-EL-
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
CSS, at 10.  No less than the Wimmers, Ohio Edison must comply with the 
commission’s order. 
III. Conclusion 
{¶ 12} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order of the commission. 
Order affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, 
CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Lester S. Potash, for appellants. 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and William L. Wright, Werner L. 
Margard III, and Devin D. Parram, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee. 
Jones Day, David A. Kutik, Jeffrey Saks, and Douglas R. Cole, for 
intervening appellee, Ohio Edison Company. 
______________________