A recent decision by the Eighth Appellate District Court of Appeals has determined that a local government cannot be held liable for injuries resulting from a tree falling onto a vehicle unless specific legal criteria are met. This ruling addresses when municipalities can be sued for alleged negligence related to public road maintenance and obstructions.
The appeal was filed by the City of Euclid on April 16, 2026, after plaintiff Carmen T. Frederico brought a complaint against both the city and 1795 Spino Dr., LLC in July 2025 in Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. The case stemmed from an incident on July 15, 2023, when Frederico was driving and a tree fell onto his car, causing serious injuries.
According to Frederico’s complaint, the property where the tree stood belonged to Spino but information from the City of Euclid’s website indicated that the city owned and was responsible for maintaining the tree. The complaint alleged that “the city knew or should have known that the tree was dangerously close to the road, had branches that were dangerously leaning out over [the road] and causing an obstruction, was at risk of falling onto the traveled roadway, and was otherwise dangerous and in need of maintenance and/or removal.”
Frederico asserted a negligence claim against the city, stating it owed him duties of care including “the duty to keep public roads within the City of Euclid open, in repair, and free from obstructions.” He further claimed that “Defendant City of Euclid breached those duties of care by negligently failing to inspect the tree; negligently failing to maintain the tree; negligently permitting the tree to exist in close proximity to [the] [r]oad and being an obstruction and hazard; negligently failing to remove the dangerous tree; and by other negligent acts and/or omissions.”
In response, instead of filing an answer, the City of Euclid submitted a motion to dismiss based on political subdivision immunity under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2744. The trial court denied this motion on August 20, 2025. The city appealed this denial, arguing that it should be immune from liability according to state law.
The appellate court conducted its own review (de novo) as required when considering motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The opinion outlined how Ohio law generally grants immunity to political subdivisions like cities unless certain exceptions apply—specifically if there is “negligent failure to keep public roads in repair” or “negligent failure to remove obstructions from public roads.”
Frederico argued his complaint invoked this exception because he alleged facts showing negligence regarding road safety. However, referencing precedent set by Howard v. Miami Twp. Fire Div., Estate of Finley v. Cleveland Metroparks, Laurie v. Cleveland, and Newell v. Brookshire, Judge Michael John Ryan wrote that for liability under R.C. 2744.02(B)(3), there must be proof that an actual obstruction blocked or clogged the roadway—not merely something with potential or threat.
The court noted: “Taking Frederico’s allegations as true…the tree that fell on his vehicle did not constitute an obstruction under authority of Howard and its progeny.” It explained Frederico did not allege that “the tree was already on the roadway at time of accident,” which would have been necessary for his claim.
Other arguments raised by Frederico included whether attached photographs should be considered (they were not), whether differences between summary judgment reviews versus motions to dismiss affected outcome (they did not), and whether he should be allowed another chance to amend his complaint (the court found he could have done so earlier).
Ultimately, Judge Ryan concluded: “For reasons discussed herein, trial court erred by not granting City of Euclid’s motion to dismiss.” The judgment was reversed in favor of Euclid.
Attorneys listed include R. Craig McLaughlin and Antonia Mysyk for appellee Frederico; Daniel J. Rudary for appellant City of Euclid; case number CV-25-120812.
Source: 2026Ohio1380_Frederico_v_1795_Spino_Dr_LLC_Opinion_Ohio_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
