[Cite as Foster v. Dept. of Transp., 2010-Ohio-4798.]

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

GONEATHIOUS ALLEN FOSTER, et al. 

 Plaintiffs 

 v. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-05374-AD 

Clerk Miles C. Durfey 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

{¶ 1} On January 16, 2010, at approximately 5:45 a.m., plaintiff, Goneathious 

Allen Foster, was traveling north on Interstate 75 in a construction area when his 1999 

Chevrolet Malibu struck a massive pothole in the center roadway lane causing 

substantial damage to the vehicle. Plaintiff located the pothole “on Mile Marker #32” 

and described the defect as “the biggest pothole I have ever seen.” The damage event 

was investigated by a local Ohio State Highway Patrol (OSHP) unit and a “Traffic Crash 

Report” (copy submitted) was filed incident to the investigation. 

{¶ 2} Plaintiff contended that his property damage was proximately caused by 

negligence on the part of defendant, Department of Transportation (ODOT), in 

maintaining a hazardous roadway condition in a working construction area on Interstate 

75 in Warren County. Plaintiff seeks damage recovery in the amount of $1,218.51, the 

cost of replacement parts, related repair expenses, and towing costs resulting from the 

January 16, 2010 incident. Plaintiff also requested reimbursement of $4.00, the cost of 

the OSHP “Traffic Crash Report.” This fee request is not compensable in a claim of this 

type and therefore, is denied. The $25.00 filing fee was paid and plaintiff requested 
reimbursement of that cost along with his damage claim. 

{¶ 3} Defendant acknowledged that the roadway area where plaintiff’s incident 

occurred was located within the limits of a working construction project under the control 

of ODOT contractor John R. Jurgensen Company (Jurgensen). Defendant explained 

that this particular project “dealt with grading, draining, paving with asphalt concrete on 

I-75, interchange reconstruction of SR 22 and bridge replacements at several locations 

in Warren County.” According to defendant, the construction project limits “corresponds 

to state mileposts 32.10 to 40.50” on Interstate 75 and plaintiff’s incident occurred 

“around milepost 32.30,” a location within the construction area limits. Defendant 

asserted that this particular construction project was under the control of Jurgensen and 

consequently ODOT had no responsibility for any damage or mishap on the roadway 

within the construction project limits. Defendant argued that Jurgensen, by contractual 

agreement, was responsible for maintaining the roadway within the construction zone. 

Therefore, ODOT contended that Jurgensen is the proper party defendant in this action. 

Defendant implied that all duties such as the duty to inspect, the duty to warn, the duty 

to maintain, and the duty to repair defects were delegated when an independent 

contractor takes control over a particular section of roadway. Furthermore, defendant 

contended that plaintiff failed to introduce sufficient evidence to prove his damage was 

proximately caused by roadway conditions created by ODOT or its contractors. All 

construction work was to be performed in accordance with ODOT requirements and 

specifications and subject to ODOT approval. Also, evidence has been submitted to 

establish that ODOT personnel were present on site conducting inspection activities. 

{¶ 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. 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. 

{¶ 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. The duty of ODOT to maintain the roadway in a 

safe drivable condition is not delegable to an independent contractor involved in 

roadway construction. ODOT may bear liability for the negligent acts of an independent 

contractor charged with roadway construction. Cowell v. Ohio Department of 

Transportation, Ct. of Cl. No. 2003-09343-AD, jud, 2004-Ohio-151. Despite defendant’s 

contentions that ODOT did not owe any duty in regard to the construction project, 

defendant was charged with duties to inspect the construction site and correct any 

known deficiencies in connection with the particular construction work. See Roadway 

Express, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. (June 28, 2001), Franklin App. 00AP-1119. 

{¶ 6} Alternatively, defendant denied that neither ODOT nor Jurgensen had any 

notice of the particular pothole prior to plaintiff’s property damage event. Defendant 

pointed out that ODOT records “indicate that one call was received regarding a pothole 

on I-75 but it is not in the same location as Plaintiff Foster’s incident.” The submitted 

complaint record show a complaint about a pothole on Interstate 75 at milepost 32.820 

was received on January 15, 2010. Defendant advised, “[i]t should be noted this portion 

of I-75 has an average daily traffic volume of 70,000, however, and only one call was 

received for I-75 prior to plaintiff’s alleged incident.” Defendant contended that plaintiff 

failed to offer any evidence of negligent roadway maintenance on the part of ODOT and 

failed to produce evidence to that establish his property damage was attributable to 

conduct on either the part of ODOT or Jurgensen. 

{¶ 7} Defendant submitted a letter from Jurgensen Safety Manager, Travis 

Roberts, who recorded Jurgensen was notified of a pothole “on NB I-75 near SR-122” 
by the OSHP at approximately 9:00 p.m. on January 14, 2010. According to Roberts, 

that pothole was promptly patched by Jurgensen personnel beginning at 9:45 p.m. 

Roberts noted that when the pothole was patched at 9:45 p.m. “[t]wo (2) lanes of traffic 

were closed due to the large size of the pothole; the pothole was approximately 3.5 ft. x 

28 ft.” According to Roberts, the massive pothole was patched with cold patch material, 

had formed in existing area of pavement not presently under construction, and was 

completely repaired by 2:00 a.m. on January 15, 2010. Roberts reported that, “[f]our (4) 

hours later (Jurgensen) was contacted that a hole had reformed” and this time repairs 

were made by ODOT personnel using cold patch material. Roberts pointed out that 

ODOT subsequently directed Jurgensen to close two lanes of traffic and repair the 

pothole with hot mix asphalt and these repairs were completed by 7:30 p.m. on January 

15, 2010. Roberts reported that Jurgensen “closed two (2) lanes of traffic on I-75 NB 

from State Route 63 to State Route 122” on January 16, 2010. Roberts also reported 

that “[t]his section of roadway was cold planed and repaved upon approval from ODOT.” 

The referenced section of Interstate 75 North from approximate milepost 29.1 to 32.8. 

Submitted time sheets for work performed in patching the pothole on the night of 

January 14, 2010 reflect that four tons of cold mix material were used to implement 

repairs. It appears from the time sheet dated January 15, 2010 that 59.21 tons of 

asphalt were used to effectuate pothole repairs on that date. The submitted January 

16, 2010 time sheet indicates that pothole repair was performed starting at 5:00 a.m. 

{¶ 8} Plaintiff filed a response pointing out that two other motorists struck the 

pothole that damaged his vehicle. Plaintiff again asserted that, “I hit the biggest pothole 

I have ever seen.” Evidence from another claim filed in this court No. 2010-02090-AD 

establishes that the pothole plaintiff’s vehicle struck was present on the roadway on 

January 15, 2010. The pothole had apparently been previously patched and the patch 

had deteriorated by the time plaintiff’s incident occurred. 

{¶ 9} In order to find liability for a damage claim occurring in a construction 

area, the court must look at the totality of the circumstances to determine whether 

ODOT acted in a manner to render the highway free from an unreasonable risk of harm 

for the traveling public. Feichtner v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. (1995), 114 Ohio App. 3d 

346, 683 N.E. 2d 112. In fact, the duty to render the highway free from an 

unreasonable risk of harm is the precise duty owed by ODOT to the traveling public 
under both normal traffic and during highway construction projects. See e.g. White v. 

Ohio Dept. of Transp. (1990), 56 Ohio St. 3d 39, 42, 564 N.E. 2d 462. 

{¶ 10} 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. 

{¶ 11} 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 pothole 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. There is insufficient evidence ODOT or Jurgensen had actual 

notice that the pothole had reformed prior to plaintiff’s incident at 5:45 a.m. on January 

16, 2010. Therefore, in order to recover plaintiff must produce evidence to prove 

constructive notice of the defect or negligent maintenance. 

{¶ 12} “[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. 

{¶ 13} Generally, 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 

defective condition developed. Spires v. Ohio Highway Department (1988), 61 Ohio 

Misc. 2d 262, 577 N.E. 2d 458. 

{¶ 14} In order for there to be constructive notice, plaintiff must show 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. Ordinarily size of a defect (pothole) 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. However, the massive 

size of a defect coupled with the knowledge that the pothole presented a recurring 

problem is sufficient to prove constructive notice. Fite v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., Ct. of 

Cl. No. 2009-05757-AD, 2009-Ohio-7124. 

{¶ 15} Additionally, plaintiff has produced evidence to infer defendant maintains 

the roadway negligently. Denis. Plaintiff’s evidence submitted shows that the particular 

damage-causing pothole was formed when an existing patch deteriorated. This fact 

alone does not provide conclusive proof of negligent maintenance. A pothole patch that 

deteriorates in less than ten days is prima facie evidence of negligent maintenance. 

Matala v. Ohio Department of Transportation, Ct. of Cl. No. 2003-01270-AD, 2003-Ohio2618; Schrock v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., Ct. of Cl. No. 2005-02460-AD, 2005-Ohio-2479. 

Evidence has shown that plaintiff’s vehicle was damaged by a pothole that had been 

patched on January 14, 2010 and the repair patch failed by 5:45 a.m. on January 16, 

2010. 

{¶ 16} The fact that the pothole plaintiff’s car struck deteriorated in a time frame 

of less than ten days warrants application of the standard expressed in Matala; Fisher v. 

Ohio Dept. of Transp., Ct. of Cl. No. 2007-04869-AD, 2007-Ohio-5288; Romes v. Ohio 

Dept. of Transp., Ct. of Cl. No. 2008-01826-AD, 2008-Ohio-4624. Defendant is liable to 

plaintiff for the damage claimed $1,218.51, plus the $25.00 filing fee which may be 

awarded as compensable costs pursuant to R.C. 2335.19. Bailey v. Ohio Department 

of Rehabilitation and Correction (1990), 62 Ohio Misc. 2d 19, 587 N.E. 2d 990. 

 

 

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 

GONEATHIOUS ALLEN FOSTER, et al. 
 Plaintiffs 

 v. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-05374-AD 

Clerk Miles C. Durfey 

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 plaintiffs in the amount of $1,243.51, which includes the filing fee. Court costs are 

assessed against defendant. 

 

 MILES C. DURFEY 

 Clerk 

Entry cc: 

Goneathious Allen Foster Jolene M. Molitoris, Director 

Carolyn D. Hill Department of Transportation 

245 Sandhurst Drive 1980 West Broad Street 

Dayton, Ohio 45405 Columbus, Ohio 43223 

RDK/laa 

5/25 

Filed 6/8/10 

Sent to S.C. reporter 10/1/10