Dayton v. Siff

Citations

• 232 N.E.3d 480
• 2023 Ohio 4685

Syllabus

The trial court did not err in finding appellant liable for a civil notice of liability, which alleged that appellant had violated a speed ordinance. Appellant admitted she was the registered owner of the photographed vehicle and failed to provide any evidence rebutting the presumption that she was responsible for the violation. The trial court also did not err in failing to apply various provisions in the Ohio Civil Rules the statutory scheme in R.C. 4511.092 to R.C. 4511.0914, which governs photo enforcement of traffic laws, is a special statutory proceeding and renders the civil rules at issue \clearly inapplicable\ under Civ.R. 1(C). Furthermore, the trial court did not fail to consider appellant's \counterclaim.\ The court lacked jurisdiction to issue an injunction, and appellant, as a pro se litigant, was not entitled to attorney fees or to be reimbursed for time she spent defending the action (which she lost anyway). Finally, the City did not violate appellant's rights to due process, privacy, and equal protection of the law. Judgment affirmed.