506, 509, 721 N.E.2d 1020, 1023, fn. 1. 4 . The Estate primarily relies on Strohofer v. Cincinnati (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 118, 6 OBR 178, 451 N.E.2d 787, to support its proposition that a political subdivision can be held liable for the defective design and placement of traffic control devices. However, the Strohofer court was acting during the time immediately after the Ohio Supreme Court had abolished the common-law doctrine of sovereign immunity in Haverlack v. Portage Homes, Inc. (1982), 2 Ohio St.3d 26, 2 OBR 572, 442 N.E.2d 749, and prior to the legislative enactment of R.C. 2744.01 et seq. The Strohofer opinion was predicated in part on the fact that there was no statute granting the political subdivision immunity. Strohofer, 6 Ohio St.3d 118, 6 OBR 178, 451 N.E.2d 787, syllabus (<HOLDING>). The Estate avers that Strohofer is still
holding that the sovereign immunity defense may be raised for the first time on appeal holding that the doctrine of sovereign immunity barred a claim for money damages against the librarian of congress in his official capacity because immunity had not been waived and the exceptions to immunity did not apply holding that the alien tort statute itself is not a waiver of sovereign immunity holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also immunity from suit holding that in the absence of a statute providing immunity the defense of sovereign immunity is not available to a municipal corporation in an action for damages alleged to be caused by the tortious conduct of the municipality