[Cite as Lechleiter v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2009-Ohio-7172.]

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

MAUREEN A. LECHLEITER 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2009-06923-AD 

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

{¶ 1} On July 27, 2009, a 2008 Honda Civic reportedly owned by Maureen A. 

Lechleiter, was damaged while stopped in traffic on Interstate 71 South in Hamilton 

County “between Pfeieffer Rd. and Ronald Reagan Hwy.” Plaintiff related the front 

bumper of her car was damaged “when a Cincinnati Metro bus passed by on the inside 

shoulder and threw back a hubcap that must have been lying on the shoulder” into the 

path of the stopped 2008 Honda Civic. Plaintiff further related the flying debris struck 

the left front bumper of the vehicle causing a large dent. Plaintiff submitted several 

photographs depicting the damage to the automobile. Plaintiff asserted the damage to 

her automobile was proximately caused by negligence on the part of defendant, 

Department of Transportation (ODOT), in failing to maintain the roadway free of debris 

conditions, such as the hubcap on the roadway shoulder area of Interstate 71. Plaintiff 

stated “[o]n any given day, there is always plenty of debris on this section of freeway 

(and) [t]his creates very dangerous conditions especially with the buses using the 

shoulder.” Plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover damages in the amount of 

$701.70, the total cost of automotive repair she incurred resulting from the described 
incident. The $25.00 filing fee was paid and plaintiff requested reimbursement of that 

cost along with her damage claim. 

{¶ 2} Defendant denied liability in this matter based on the contention that no 

ODOT personnel had any knowledge of the debris on Interstate 71 prior to plaintiff’s 

property damage occurrence. Defendant denied receiving any prior calls or complaints 

about the particular debris condition, which ODOT located between mileposts 15.80 and 

14.13 on Interstate 71 in Hamilton County. Defendant suggested “that the debris 

existed in that location for only a relatively short amount of time before plaintiff’s 

incident.” Defendant asserted plaintiff failed to produce any evidence to establish her 

property damage was attributable to any conduct on the part of ODOT personnel. 

{¶ 3} Defendant pointed out plaintiff acknowledged her property damage 

occurred when a Cincinnati Metro bus ran over a hubcap on the shoulder of Interstate 

71 and propelled the hubcap into the bumper of her car. Defendant contended ODOT is 

generally not responsible for mishaps on the roadway caused by the conduct of a third 

party; in this case the driver of a Cincinnati Metro bus. Furthermore, defendant 

asserted plaintiff failed to prove her damage was proximately caused by any negligence 

on the part of ODOT in regard to roadway maintenance. Defendant explained ODOT 

conducts roadway inspections on a routine basis and performs multiple maintenance 

operations on Interstate 71 including litter pick up and curb, gutter, and roadway median 

cleaning procedures. Defendant stated that “if ODOT personnel had found any debris it 

would have been picked up.” 

{¶ 4} 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. 

{¶ 5} 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 debris 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 ODOT had actual notice of the debris condition. Therefore, plaintiff, in order 

to prevail on a notice rationale, must present evidence of constructive notice of the 

condition. The trier of fact is precluded from making an inference of defendant’s 

constructive notice, unless evidence is presented in respect to the time the debris 

appeared on the roadway. Spires v. Ohio Highway Department (1988), 61 Ohio Misc. 

2d 262, 577 N.E. 2d 458. However, proof of notice of a dangerous condition is not 

necessary when defendant’s own agents actively cause such condition. See Bello v. 

City of Cleveland (1922), 106 Ohio St. 94, 138 N.E. 526, at paragraph one of the 

syllabus; Sexton v. Ohio Department of Transportation (1996), 94-13861. No evidence 

has been presented to prove that defendant had constructive notice of the debris or that 

ODOT personnel actively caused the condition. 

{¶ 6} For plaintiff to prevail on a claim of negligence, she must prove, by a 

preponderance of the evidence, that defendant owed her a duty, that it breached that 

duty, and that the breach proximately caused her injures. Armstrong v. Best Buy 

Company, Inc., 99 Ohio St. 3d 79, 2003-Ohio-2573, 788 N.E. 2d 1088, ¶8 citing 

Menifee v. Ohio Welding Products, Inc. (1984), 15 Ohio St. 3d 75, 77, 15 OBR 179, 472 

N.E. 2d 707. However, “[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. 

{¶ 7} Evidence in the instant action tends to show plaintiff’s damage was 

caused by an act of an unidentified third party, not ODOT. Defendant has denied 

liability based on the particular premise that it had no duty to control the conduct of a 

third person except in cases where a special relationship exists between defendant and 

either plaintiff or the person whose conducts needs to be controlled. Federal Steel & 

Wire Corp. v. Ruhlin Const. Co. (1989), 45 Ohio St. 3d 171, 543 N.E. 2d 769. However, 

defendant may still bear liability if it can be established if some act or omission on the 

part of ODOT was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury. This court, as trier of fact, 

determines questions of proximate causation. Shinaver v. Szymanski (1984), 14 Ohio 
St. 3d 51, 14 OBR 446, 471 N.E. 2d 477. 

{¶ 8} “If an injury is the natural and probable consequence of a negligent act 

and it is such as should have been foreseen in the light of all the attending 

circumstances, the injury is then the proximate result of the negligence. It is not 

necessary that the defendant should have anticipated the particular injury. It is 

sufficient that his act is likely to result in an injury to someone.” Cascone v. Herb Kay 

Co. (1983), 6 Ohio St. 3d 155, 160, 6 OBR 209, 451 N.E. 2d 815, quoting Neff Lumber 

Co. v. First National Bank of St. Clairsville, Admr. (1930), 122 Ohio St. 302, 309, 171 

N.E. 327. 

{¶ 9} Plaintiff has failed to establish that her damage was proximately caused 

by any negligent act or omission on the part of ODOT. In fact, it is apparent that the 

cause of plaintiff’s injury was the act of a third party which did not involve ODOT. 

Plaintiff has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant failed to 

discharge a duty owed to plaintiff, or that plaintiff’s injury was proximately caused by 

defendant’s negligence. Plaintiff failed to show the damage-causing object at the time 

of the damage incident was connected to any conduct under the control of defendant or 

any negligence on the part of defendant proximately caused the damage. Herman v. 

Ohio Dept. of Transp. (2006), 2006-05730-AD. 

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 

MAUREEN A. LECHLEITER 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2009-06923-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: 

Maureen A. Lechleiter Jolene M. Molitoris, Director 

4573 Hyacinth Drive Department of Transportation 

Mason, Ohio 45040 1980 West Broad Street 

 Columbus, Ohio 43223 

RDK/laa 

10/27 

Filed 11/20/09 

Sent to S.C. reporter 3/12/10