[Cite as Yarbrough v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., Dist. 12, 2011-Ohio-1115.]

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

GEORGE H. YARBROUGH 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DISTRICT 12 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-08942-AD 

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

{¶ 1} Plaintiff, George H. Yarbrough, filed this action against defendant, 

Department of Transportation (ODOT), contending the tire on his 2009 Ford Taurus was 

damaged as a proximate cause of negligence on the part of ODOT in maintaining a 

hazardous condition on Interstate 480 in Cuyahoga County. Specifically, plaintiff 

related: “I was driving westbound on Interstate 480, near Transportation Blvd., at 

approximately 11:00 AM on August 1, 2009, when a vehicle, slightly ahead of me and to 

my left, struck an object on the road” propelling the object into the path of the 2009 Ford 

Taurus and causing damage to the tire when the vehicle ran over it. Plaintiff described 

the damage-causing object as a “wheel cover.” In his complaint, plaintiff requested 

damage recovery in the amount of $124.94, the cost of a replacement tire. The filing 

fee was paid. 

{¶ 2} Defendant conducted an investigation and determined that the damagecausing incident occurred at state milepost 21.70 or county milepost 19.55 on Interstate 

480 in Cuyahoga County. Defendant asserts that it had no “notice of the subject 

condition prior to” the damage-causing incident. Defendant, “believes that the debris 

existed in that location for only a relatively short amount of time before plaintiff’s 
incident.” Defendant asserted that plaintiff failed to produce any evidence to establish 

the length of time the debris condition existed prior to 11:00 a.m. on August 1, 2009. 

Defendant also asserted that plaintiff did not offer any evidence to show the damagecausing debris condition was attributable to any conduct on the part of ODOT. 

{¶ 3} Defendant pointed out that defendant’s “Cuyahoga 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 debris was discovered at state 

milepost 21.70 on Interstate 480 the last time that specific section of roadway was 

inspected prior to August 1, 2009. Defendant reviewed a six-month maintenance 

jurisdiction history of the area in question and found five litter patrols were performed, 

the last being on July 30, 2009. Also, defendant’s records show that sixteen litter pickups were performed in the area with the last occurring on June 30, 2009 and according 

to defendant, any debris found would have been picked up. 

{¶ 4} 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. Plaintiff 

has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he suffered a loss 

and that this loss was proximately caused by defendant’s negligence. Barnum v. Ohio 

State University (1977), 76-0368-AD. 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. 

{¶ 5} 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. 
{¶ 6} 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 condition or defect 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. 

{¶ 7} Defendant professed liability cannot be established when requisite notice 

of the damage-causing conditions cannot be proven. Generally, defendant is only liable 

for roadway conditions of which it has notice, but fails to correct. Bussard. However, 

proof of notice of a dangerous condition is not necessary when defendant’s own agents 

actively caused 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. Plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence to prove 

that his property damage was caused by a defective condition created by ODOT or that 

defendant knew about the particular wheel cover debris condition prior to 11:00 a.m. on 

August 1, 2009. 

{¶ 8} Ordinarily, to recover in any suit involving injury proximately caused by 

roadway conditions including wheel cover debris, plaintiff must proof that either: 1) 

defendant had actual or constructive notice of the debris condition 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 provided any evidence to prove 

that ODOT had actual notice of the damage-causing condition. Therefore, in order to 

recover plaintiff must offer proof of defendant’s constructive notice of the condition as 

evidence to establish negligent maintenance. 

{¶ 9} “[C]onstructive notice is that which the law regards as sufficient to give 

notice and is regarded as a substitute for actual notice or knowledge. In re Estate of 

Fahle (1950), 90 Ohio App. 195, 197-198, 48 O.O. 231, 105 N.E. 2d 429. “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 time standard 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. 92AP-1183. In order for there to be a finding of 

constructive notice, plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, 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; Gelarden v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., Dist. 4, 

Ct. of Cl. No. 2007-02521-AD, 2007-Ohio-3047. 

{¶ 10} Plaintiff has not produced any evidence to indicate the length of time that 

the wheel cover debris was present on the roadway prior to the incident forming the 

basis of this claim. Plaintiff has not shown that defendant had actual notice of the 

condition. Also, the trier of fact is precluded from making an inference of defendant’s 

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

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

Ohio Misc. 2d 262, 577 N.E. 2d 458. There is no indication that defendant had 

constructive notice of the wheel cover debris on the roadway. 

{¶ 11} Evidence in the instant action is conclusive to show that plaintiff’s damage 

was caused by an act of an unidentified third party. 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. See 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. 

{¶ 12} “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. 

{¶ 13} Plaintiff has not produced any evidence to infer that defendant, in a 

general sense, maintains its highways negligently or that defendant’s acts caused the 

defective condition. Herlihy v. Ohio Department of Transportation (1999), 99-07011-AD. 

Defendant submitted evidence showing that ODOT personnel were periodically 

performing work activities on the particular section of Interstate 480 where plaintiff’s 

damage incident occurred. Plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove 

that defendant maintained a hazardous condition on the roadway which was the 

substantial or sole cause of his property damage. Plaintiff has failed to prove, by a 

preponderance of the evidence, that any ODOT roadway maintenance activity created a 

nuisance. Plaintiff has not submitted evidence to prove that a negligent act or omission 

on the part of defendant caused the damage to his property. Hall v. Ohio Department of 

Transportation (2000), 99-12963-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 

GEORGE H. YARBROUGH 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DISTRICT 12 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-08942-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: 

George H. Yarbrough Jolene M. Molitoris, Director 

19015 Van Aken Blvd. Department of Transportation 

Apt. 406 1980 West Broad Street 

Shaker Hts., Ohio 44122-3504 Columbus, Ohio 43223 

RDK/laa 

12/1 

Filed 1/11/11 

Sent to S.C. reporter 3/4/11