[Cite as White v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2015-Ohio-4850.]

IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

MICHAEL WHITE 

Plaintiff 

v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Defendant 

Case No. 2014-00875-AD 

Clerk Mark H. Reed 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

{¶1} On November 4, 2014, Michael White filed a complaint in this Court against 

the Ohio Department of Transportation (hereinafter “ODOT”). In his complaint, plaintiff 

White alleged that on August 22, 2014 his 2004 Pontiac Grand Prix was damaged when 

he entered onto a temporary driveway leading to his property located at 4201 Lake 

Road East in Geneva, Ashtabula County, Ohio. This driveway was constructed by the 

Mark Haynes Construction Company, who was under contract with ODOT to improve 

that part of SR 531 that fronted plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff White alleges that as he 

turned onto the driveway from SR 531, his vehicle dropped down unexpectedly causing 

his lower bumper to scrape and crack. The plaintiff claims this damage was the result 

of the contractor’s failure to properly grade and smooth the temporary driveway. The 

cost to repair plaintiff’s vehicle was $1,100.00. No information regarding plaintiff’s 

insurance was provided to the Court. 

{¶2} In an Investigation Report filed with the Court on February 20, 2015, ODOT 

did not deny the fact that plaintiff’s vehicle was damaged while driving onto his 

driveway, nor did the Department dispute the amount of damages. 

{¶3} According to the Investigation Report, this project, which involved improving 

this section of SR 531 in Geneva and Saybrook Township, was under construction by 
 

the Mark Haynes Construction Company. The Department related that ODOT had not 

received any complaints from the plaintiff or anyone else concerning the temporary 

driveway within the construction zone, during the six (6) months prior to plaintiff’s 

accident. In construction cases like this one, the court may only pass judgment on 

whether the plaintiff has shown that ODOT breached its duty to the public in managing 

the contractor in a reasonable manner thus ensuring the safety of the public within the 

construction zone. 

{¶4} As the Court considers whether ODOT breached its duty to the public, the 

Court must take into account that the area where the accident occurred was a 

construction zone. Ohio law is clear that ODOT cannot guarantee the same level of 

safety during a highway construction project as it can under normal traffic conditions. 

Feichtner v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. (1995), 114 Ohio App. 3d346, 354; Roadway 

Express, Inc. The test is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, "ODOT acted 

sufficiently to render the highway reasonably safe for the traveling public during the 

construction project." Basilone v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. (Feb. 13, 2001), Franklin App. 

No. 00AP-811, citing Feichtner, and Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Ohio Dept. of 

Transp. (1988), 49 Ohio App.3d. 129. 

{¶5} In this case, there is nothing in the record that would allow the Court to find 

that the department did not act appropriately to keep the construction area reasonably 

safe. The construction of the temporary driveway was not an unreasonable solution to 

provide access to plaintiff’s property during the time that the road construction was 

ongoing. A close read of defendant’s Exhibit D leads the Court to conclude that there is 

no sustainable evidence of neglect on the part of ODOT. The plaintiff did not offer any 

evidence to counter what was in ODOT’s investigation report regarding this element. 

However, Mark Haynes Construction, Inc. is an independent contractor and that entity 
Case No. 2012-06637 - 3 - ENTRY 

would be responsible for any negligent actions of its employees. 

{¶6} Since the plaintiff is unable to prove that the defendant knew or should have 

known about this dangerous condition, the claim must fail. 

IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

MICHAEL WHITE 

Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2014-00875-AD 

Clerk Mark H. Reed 

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. 

________________________________ 

MARK H. REED 

Clerk 

Entry cc: 

Michael White Jerry Wray, Director 
 

4201 Lake Road East Ohio Department of Transportation 

Geneva, Ohio 44041 1980 West Broad Street 

 Mail Stop 1500 

 Columbus, Ohio 43223 

 

Filed 4/16/15 

Sent to S.C. Reporter 11/24/15