[Cite as Hollan v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2010-Ohio-1956.]

Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Third Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us

CHARLES HOLLAN 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2009-07989-AD 

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

FINDINGS OF FACT 

{¶ 1} Plaintiff, Charles Hollan, filed this action against defendant, Department of 

Transportation (ODOT), alleging his 2008 Chevrolet Silverado received paint damage 

while traveling on State Route 252 when ODOT personnel were applying fresh edge 

line paint to the roadway on September 16, 2009. Plaintiff pointed out he was traveling 

south on State Route 252 in Lorain County and had crossed into Medina County near 

Grafton Road when he observed the ODOT paint striping operation at approximately 

10:00 a.m. Plaintiff related “I turned west on Grafton, (completed) my (business) and 

came home and at that time I saw the white paint on the passenger side of my new 

2008 Silverado [t]ruck.” Plaintiff asserted he did not notice any warning signs such as 

“Wet Paint” when he approached the edge line painting activity on State Route 252 near 

Grafton Road. Plaintiff noted his truck had paint damage on the passenger side, wheel 

wells, and tires, as well as the rear bumper. Plaintiff contended the paint damage to his 

vehicle was proximately caused by negligence on the part of ODOT personnel in failing 

to adequately warn him of the moving painting operation on September 16, 2009. 
Consequently, plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover damages in the amount of 

$1,785.11, the cost of paint removal. The $25.00 filing fee was paid and plaintiff 

requested reimbursement of that cost along with his damage claim. 

{¶ 2} Defendant acknowledged ODOT personnel were painting white edge lines 

on State Route 252 in both Lorain and Medina Counties on September 16, 2009 from 

8:30 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. Defendant explained three trucks were involved in the painting 

operation which is classified as “a moving work zone that comes under the authority of 

the Manual of Traffic Control for Construction and Maintenance Operations (Manual).” 

Defendant insisted all traffic control requirements mandated by the Manual were 

observed during the course of the edge line painting. Defendant pointed out the “traffic 

control that was in effect for the paint operation in question included the lead paint truck, 

the paint striper, and a follow truck” along with “Wet Paint” signs posted throughout the 

painting area on State Route 252. Defendant further explained that during a moving 

painting operation the trail vehicle “was functioning in the appropriate manner by 

preventing traffic from entering the striping operation.” Defendant advised plaintiff noted 

in his complaint “I saw the road striping truck ahead,” thereby admitting he was aware of 

the painting procedures. Defendant contended all Manual mandated traffic control was 

observed during the course of the painting operation and all safety precautions were in 

place to advise motorists of the painting activity. Defendant further contended ODOT 

did not breach any duty of care owed to motorists such as plaintiff when conducting the 

September 16, 2009 painting operation. 

{¶ 3} Defendant submitted a statement from ODOT Highway Technician, Steve 

Young, who was involved in the painting activity. Young provided the following 

description of the operation: 

{¶ 4} “On September 16th were painted on State Route 252 in Lorain County 

between 0830 am and 1100 am. We were painting white edge line temperature was 

between 65 degrees and 70 degrees. We had wet paint with right arrow pointing down 

and edge line painting on the follow truck, which was between 1000' and 1500' behind 

the striper. Log point were 0 to 5.5. 

{¶ 5} “We also painted State Route 252 in Medina County between the 1 and 

the 5. These were just spot patches on both routes. We had the same set up with the 

trucks in Medina. The time was 1100 am to 1145 am.” 
{¶ 6} Plaintiff filed a response observing “Rt. 252 is very windy and hilly in this 

area” where he encountered the painting operation. Plaintiff recorded “at the point I 

noticed the painting crew, (there) is a sharp bend in the road (and) [a]t that point (there) 

is less than two tenth(s) of a mile between (the) bend (and) Grafton Rd.” Plaintiff again 

asserted there were no warning signs on State Route 252 to advise motorists of the 

painting operation. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

{¶ 7} Defendant has the duty to maintain its highways in a reasonably safe 

condition for the motoring public. Knickel v. Ohio Department of Transportation (1976), 

49 Ohio App. 2d 335, 3 O.O. 3d 413, 361 N.E. 2d 486. However, defendant is not an 

insurer of the safety of its highways. See Kniskern v. Township of Somerford (1996), 

112 Ohio App. 3d 189, 678 N.E. 2d 273; Rhodus v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. (1990), 67 

Ohio App. 3d 723, 588 N.E. 2d 864. 

{¶ 8} Plaintiff has the burden of proof to show his property damage was the 

direct result of the failure of defendant’s agents to exercise ordinary care in conducting 

roadway painting operations. Brake v. Department of Transportation (2000), 99-12545-

AD. A failure to exercise ordinary care may be shown in situations where motorists do 

not receive adequate or effective advisement of an ODOT painting activity. See 

Hosmer v. Ohio Department of Transportation, Ct. of Cl. No. 2002-08301-AD, 2003-

Ohio-1921. In the instant claim, plaintiff has acknowledged he discovered defendant 

was conducting edge line painting and apparently drove over fresh paint on the roadway 

edge line after having full knowledge of the operation. 

{¶ 9} Plaintiff has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that 

defendant failed to discharge a duty owed to him or that his injury was proximately 

caused by defendant’s negligence. Plaintiff has failed to show that his property damage 

was connected to any conduct under the control of defendant, that defendant was 

negligent in conducting the painting operation, or that there was any negligence on the 

part of defendant in regard to providing proper notification. Roe v. Ohio Dept. of 

Transp., Ct. of Cl. No. 2008-09872-AD, 2009-Ohio-3579; Layfield v. Dept. of Transp., 

Ct. of Cl. No. 2008-10692-AD, 2009-Ohio-3776. Conversely, evidence directs the court 

to conclude plaintiff’s own negligent driving was the cause of his property damage. 

Therefore, this claim is denied. See Rolfes v. Ohio Dept. of Transportation, Ct. of Cl. 
No. 2004-09941-AD, 2005-Ohio-840; Delamatter v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., Ct. of Cl. No. 

2007-01355-AD, 2007-Ohio-6387. 

 

 

 

Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Third Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us 

CHARLES HOLLAN 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2009-07989-AD 

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION

 Having considered all the evidence in the claim file and, for the reasons set forth 

in the memorandum decision filed concurrently herewith, judgment is rendered in favor 

of defendant. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff. 

 

 ________________________________ 

 DANIEL R. BORCHERT 

 Deputy Clerk 

Entry cc: 
Charles Hollan Jolene M. Molitoris, Director 

18338 South Boone Road Department of Transportation 

Columbia Station, Ohio 44028 1980 West Broad Street 

 Columbus, Ohio 43223 

RDK/laa 

12/16 

Filed 1/7/10 

Sent to S.C. reporter 4/30/10