Court Opinion

ID: 9822756
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 09:23:45.614823+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:09.735757
License: Public Domain

O’Neill, J.,
dissenting.
{¶ 33} Respectfully, I must dissent.
{¶ 34} The lead opinion employs the kind of judicial metaphysics that gave rise to the term “legal fiction.” It is simply make-believe to suggest that the portion of the asphalt that dropped off five inches to meet the berm on the side of the road is not also a part of the road. It is like saying that the period at the end of this sentence is not a part of the sentence. The court can use any Aristotelian definition of a road it wants. But the five inches of asphalt that define the outer edge of the road caused this accident — not the mud next to it.
{¶ 35} Thus, I dissent.