Motion And Procedural Rulings
On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are to brief the issues stated at page 2 of the court of appeals' Journal Entry filed January 12, 2007:
"1. Whether a utility pole that is located off the improved portion of the roadway, but in close proximity to the improved portion thereof and within the right-of-way, may constitute an obstruction dangerous to anyone properly using the highway.
"2. Whether a utility company may be held liable in negligence to motorists who strike a utility pole located in close proximity to the improved portion of a roadway and within the right-of-way when it presents a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm to users of the roadway."
PFEIFER, O'DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., dissent.
The conflict cases are Jocek v. GTE N., Inc. (Sept. 27, 1995), Summit App. No. 17097; Neiderbrach v. Dayton Power Light Co. (1994), 94 Ohio App.3d 334; Ferguson v. Cincinnati Gas Electric Co. (1990), 69 Ohio App.3d 460; and Crank v. Ohio Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Yant (1940), 64 Ohio App. 189.
Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2007-0035, Turner v. Ohio Bell Tel. Co., Cuyahoga App. No. 87541, 2006-Ohio-6163.