[Cite as Crawford v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., Dist. 3 , 2011-Ohio-5124.]



# 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

JOHN R. CRAWFORD

Plaintiff

v.

OHIO DEPT. OF TRANS. DIST. 3

Defendant

Case No. 2011-03731-AD

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert

MEMORANDUM DECISION

{¶1} Plaintiff, John Crawford, filed this action against defendant, Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), contending that his vehicle was damaged as a proximate result of negligence on the part of ODOT in maintaining a hazardous condition on Interstate 76. In his complaint, plaintiff described the particular damage event noting that on March 5, 2011, at approximately 6:55 p.m. he was traveling in the right lane on I-76 when he “hit a pothole in road by the entrance ramp from Rt.3 to IR 76 westbound.” Plaintiff seeks recovery of damages in the amount of $1,974.68, the stated total amount for replacement tires, related vehicle repair costs, and reimbursement of the $25.00 filing fee. The filing fee was paid. {¶2} Defendant denied liability based on the contention that no ODOT personnel had any knowledge of the particular damage-causing pothole prior to plaintiff’s incident. Defendant related that plaintiff’s incident occurred “at approximate state milemarker 1.50 on I-76 in Medina County.” Defendant denied receiving any prior calls or complaints about a pothole or potholes in the vicinity of that location despite the fact that “[t]his section of roadway on I-76 has an average daily traffic count” of over17,000 vehicles. Defendant asserted that plaintiff did not offer any evidence to establish the length of time that any pothole existed in the vicinity of milepost 1.50 on I-76 prior to plaintiff’s incident. Defendant suggested that “it is more likely than not that the pothole existed in that location for only a relatively short amount of time before plaintiff’s

incident.” {¶3} Additionally, defendant contended that plaintiff did not offer any evidence to prove that the roadway was negligently maintained. Defendant advised that the ODOT “Medina County Manager conducts roadway inspections on all state roadways within the county on a routine basis, at least one to two times a month.” Apparently, no potholes were discovered in the vicinity of plaintiff’s incident the last time that section of roadway was inspected prior to March 5, 2011. The claim file is devoid of any inspection record. Defendant argued that plaintiff has failed to offer any evidence to prove his property damage was attributable to any conduct on the part of ODOT personnel. Defendant stated that, “[a] review of the six-month maintenance history [record submitted] for the area in question reveals that three (3) pothole patching operations were conducted within the incident location” on January 19, February 9, and March 5, 2011. Defendant noted, “that if ODOT personnel had detected any defects during these inspections they would have been promptly scheduled for repair.” {¶4} Plaintiff filed a response wherein he pointed out that several other vehicles also sustained damage from the same pothole, and that an Ohio State Patrol vehicle was on the scene assisting the other motorists. In addition, plaintiff stated that, “[t]he next day I drove to area and observed several pothole patchings in the roadway.” 1 Nonetheless, plaintiff did not provide any evidence to establish the length of time the pothole he struck was present on the roadway prior to his incident. {¶5} For plaintiff to prevail on a claim of negligence, he must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant owed him a duty, that it breached that duty, and that the breach proximately caused his injuries. Armstrong v. Best Buy Company, Inc., 99 Ohio St. 3d 79, 2003-Ohio-2573,¶8 citing Menifee v. Ohio Welding Products, Inc. (1984), 15 Ohio St. 3d 75, 77, 15 OBR 179, 472 N.E. 2d 707. However,

1 Based upon the statements made in the response, the trier of facts finds that, in all likelihood, the pothole patching operation on March 5, 2011, occurred after plaintiff’s incident inasmuch as the state trooper had a duty to notify defendant of the pothole after assisting the other motorists.“[i]t is the duty of a party on whom the burden of proof rests to produce evidence which furnishes a reasonable basis for sustaining his claim. If the evidence so produced furnishes only a basis for a choice among different possibilities as to any issue in the case, he fails to sustain such burden.” Paragraph three of the syllabus in Steven v.

Indus. Comm. (1945), 145 Ohio St. 198, 30 O.O. 415, 61 N.E. 2d 198, approved and

followed. {¶6} 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. Townsh ip 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. {¶7} In order to prove a breach of the duty to maintain the highways, plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant had actual or constructive notice of the precise conditions or defects alleged to have caused the

accident. McClellan v. ODOT (1986), 34 Ohio App. 3d 247, 517 N.E. 2d 1388. Defendant is only liable for roadway conditions of which it has notice, but fails to reasonably correct. Bussard v. Dept. of Transp. (1986), 31 Ohio Misc. 2d 1, 31 OBR 64, 507 N.E. 2d 1179. There is no evidence that defendant had actual notice of the pothole on I-76 prior to March 5, 2011. {¶8} Therefore, to find liability, plaintiff must prove that ODOT had constructive notice of the defect. The trier of fact is precluded from making an inference of defendant’s constructive notice, unless evidenc e is presented in respect to the time that the defective condition developed. Spires v. Ohio Highway Department (1988), 61 Ohio Misc. 2d 262, 577 N.E. 2d 458. {¶9} In order for there to be constructive notice, plaintiff must show that sufficient time has elapsed after the dangerous condition appears, so that under the circumstances defendant should have acquired knowledge of its existence. Guiher v. Dept. of Transportation (1978), 78-0126-AD . Size of the defect is insufficient to show

notice or duration of existence. O’Neil v. Department of Transportation (1988), 61 Ohio Misc. 2d 287, 587 N.E. 2d 891. “A finding of constructive notice is a determination the court must make on the facts of each case not simply by applying a pre-set timestandard for the discovery of certain road hazards.” Bussard at 4. “Obviously, the requisite length of time sufficient to constitute constructive notice varies with each specific situation.” Danko v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. (Feb. 4, 1993), Franklin App. 92AP1183. No evidence has shown that ODOT had constructive notice of the pothole. {¶10} Generally, in order to recover in a suit involving damage proximately caused by roadway conditions including potholes, plaintiff must prove that either: 1) defendant had actual or constructive notice of the potholes and failed to respond in a reasonable time or responded in a negligent manner, or 2) that defendant, in a general sense, maintains its highways negligently. Denis v. Department of Transportation (1976), 75-0287-AD. Plaintiff has not produced any evidence to infer that defendant, in a general sense, maintains its highways neglig ently or that defendant’s acts caused the

defective conditions. Herlihy v. Ohio Department of Transportation (1999), 99-07011- AD. Therefore, defendant is not liable for any damage plaintiff may have suffered from the pothole. {¶11} In the instant claim, plaintiff has failed to introduce sufficient evidence to prove that defendant maintained known hazardous roadway conditions. Plaintiff failed to prove that his property damage was connected to any conduct under the control of defendant, or that defendant was negligent in maintaining the roadway area, or that there was any actionable negligence on the part of defendant. Taylor v. Transportation Dept. (1998), 97-10898-AD; Weininger v. Department of Transportation (1999), 99- 10909-AD; Witherell v. Ohio Dept. of Transportation (2000), 2000-04758-AD. Consequently, plaintiff’s claim is denied.

# 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

JOHN R. CRAWFORD

Plaintiff

v.

OHIO DEPT. OF TRANS., DIST. 3

Defendant

Case No. 2011-03731-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:

John R. Crawford Jerry Wray 5960 Deerview Lane Department of Transportation Medina, Ohio 44256 1980 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43223 SJM/laa 6/7 Filed 6/29/11 Sent to S.C. reporter 10/4/11