COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No. 73020 ACCELERATED DOCKET PETER S. DUFFY, ET AL. : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-appellants: : AND vs. : : OPINION REGISTRAR, BUREAU OF MOTOR : VEHICLES : : PER CURIAM Defendant-appellee : : : APRIL 9, 1998 DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT : OF DECISION : : CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS : Civil appeal from : Court of Common Pleas : Case No. CV-330256 : JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellants: For defendant-appellee: DOROTHEA J. KINGSBURY, ESQ. KENNETH F. AFFELDT, ESQ. 250 Hilltop Bldg. Assistant Attorney General 5031 Mayfield Road State Office Bldg., 12th Fl. Lyndhurst, OH 44124 615 West Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113-1899 -2- PER CURIAM: This case came to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Local Rule 25, the record from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, the briefs and the oral arguments of counsel. In June 1996, plaintiff Peter Duffy caused an accident while driving an uninsured motorcycle. Defendant Registrar of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles suspended plaintiff's driving privileges for ninety days due to his failure to provided proof of financial responsibility as required by R.C. 4509.101(A)(1), and ordered reinstatement only upon plaintiff providing proof of financial responsibility. Plaintiff appealed his suspension to the court of common pleas, asking the court to waive the financial responsibility requirements since he paid $2678.62 to satisfy in whole the damages he caused in the accident and submitted proof that other motor vehicles he owned were insured as required by law. The court refused to waive the bond require- ment, finding it had no discretion to do so under the statute. Plaintiff's sole assignment of error challenges that conclusion. Pursuant to R.C. 4509.101(A)(1), no person shall be allowed to operate a motor vehicle without providing proof of financial responsibility. A person violating R.C. 4509.101(A)(1) is subject to civil penalties, including suspension of operating privileges. See 4509.101(A)(2). Financial responsibility may be shown by, among other things, an SR-22 bond as provided in R.C. 4509.59. -3- Plaintiff does not argue that the registrar erred by invoking the provisions of the financial responsibility law to suspend his driving privileges. He does maintain, however, that the court should have waived those provisions because his ability to satisfy the $2678.62 in damages shows he has demonstrated financial responsibility as contemplated by law. We reject plaintiff's argument because it runs counter to the stated purpose of the statute. In R.C. 4509.101(K), the General Assembly stated that the purpose of the financial responsibility law is to encourage the maintenance of proof of financial responsibility with respect to the operation of motor vehicles on the highways of this state, so as to minimize those situations in which persons are not compensated for injuries and damages sustained in motor vehicle accidents. Plaintiff's argument erroneously attempts to show his financial responsibility in hindsight through his ability to satisfy the single claim arising from the motorcycle accident. The difficulty with this argument is that it is not forward-looking like the statute. Plaintiff's ability to satisfy a $2678.62 claim in one case does not compel the conclusion that he can satisfy any and all future claims he might be liable for in the future. The supreme court has stated that the financial responsibility law is meant to protect the public, not the insured. See Thornton v. Person Service Ins. Co. (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 306, 310. Under the circumstances, we agree the court had no discretion to waive the plaintiff's obligation to submit proof of financial responsibility -4- as a prerequisite to having his driving privileges reinstated. The assigned error is overruled. Judgment affirmed. It is ordered that appellee recover of appellants its costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. -5- PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JOHN T. PATTON, JUDGE JAMES D. SWEENEY, JUDGE N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsidera- ation with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by .