Appeals court held that alleged violation of Ohio’s Assured Clear Distance Ahead statute qualified as a separate cause of action, requiring specific analysis from trial court and dismissing appeal for failure of order to be a final judgment.

This matter involved a pedestrian and motor-vehicle accident—the defendant struck two individuals walking on a highway off-ramp, who were allegedly intoxicated at the time. In response to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs alleged they had raised a violation of the Assured Clear Distance Ahead (ACDA) statute as a separate cause of action. However, the trial court granted summary judgment, simply ruling that there existed no issue of material fact on the question of general negligence. 

The ACDA cause of action required an analysis by the court as to whether “the driver’s vehicle collided with an object that: (1) was ahead of him in his path of travel; (2) was stationary or moving in the same direction as the driver; (3) did not suddenly appear in the driver’s path; and (4) was reasonably discernible.” Since the provisions of the ACDA establish an almost strict liability-type analysis and may not require an actual negligent act, the trial court’s failure to decide this issue rendered the decision non-final, and the appeal was dismissed. 
 

_{Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2023 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}