Legality
Legal Standards
To ensure centerline compliance based on federal transportation department standards, particularly the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), DOT's, counties, and municipalities, are encouraged to ensure that their centerline is accurate, compliant, and safe for motorists.
Famous Court Case
Why Centerlines Matter
​​
Centerlines do more than divide lanes—they communicate pass/no‑pass decisions, sight‑distance risk, and work‑zone transitions in milliseconds. When those cues disappear during resurfacing or maintenance, drivers make high‑stakes guesses. Agencies that don’t provide temporary markings or warning signs risk being found negligent.
​
What the Court Said in Slavick v. State, Dept. of Transportation (Ohio Ct. App. 1988)
​
“Removal…of no‑passing zone pavement markings…[and] failure to warn motorists of hidden dangers…may be a basis for liability.”
​
In Slavick, a resurfacing project milled off a solid yellow no‑passing line over a hidden dip. Temporary striping went back—but without the no‑passing indication. A driver, seeing what looked like a clear passing opportunity, moved left and struck an oncoming vehicle emerging from the blind spot. The appellate court reversed a defense verdict, finding the State could be liable for not restoring the no‑passing warning or posting interim signs.
Other Courts Cite This Case
​
“R.C. 4511.10 requires ODOT to comply with the MUTCD in erecting and maintaining highway signs and markings.” (White v. ODOT, Ohio Sup. Ct.)
​
Ohio appellate courts continue to rely on Slavick when evaluating whether ODOT met MUTCD‑based duties in signing and marking disputes. See O’Brien v. Dept. of Transportation (2019) (duty to conform to OMUTCD; manual compliance central to liability analysis).
National Perspective
The New Mexico Court of Appeals, surveying roadway‑work liability, cited Slavick in holding that a state may breach its duty when it fails to ensure contractors follow its traffic control manual—especially on temporary pavement markings.
What the MUTCD Says About No-Passing Zones
The national MUTCD is explicit:
“No‑passing zones shall be marked…at vertical and horizontal curves…where passing must be prohibited because of inadequate sight distances.”
If you’ve got centerline markings, it is important to ensure that they are accurate, consistent, and safe for motorists. If you have paved your roads multiple times, it's time to get centerline assurance.
“Missing No‑Passing Stripes = Liability Exposure.”
Ohio appellate court warned that removing no‑passing markings and failing to warn of hidden hazards ‘may be a basis for liability.’ (Slavick v. ODOT).
​
“Don’t Create an Illusion of Safety.”
Plaintiffs in Slavick successfully argued ODOT’s temporary centerline “created a trap by causing an illusion of safety.” Court reversed and remanded.
​
“Your Own Engineers Will Be Asked…”
ODOT’s district engineer testified the agency “had a duty to protect motorists…[and] eliminate…or guard against” road hazards. Slavick.
​
“MUTCD Compliance Isn’t Optional.”
Supporting text: Ohio Supreme Court: ODOT must comply with the MUTCD for highway signs and markings. White v. ODOT (citing Slavick).
Approximately 120 motorists are killed each day in the United States. This translates to roughly 44,000 fatalities annually.
