[Cite as Copeland v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2010-Ohio-6640.]

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

MARK COPELAND 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-03631-AD 

Clerk Miles C. Durfey 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

{¶ 1} Plaintiff, Mark Copeland, filed this action against defendant, Department of 

Transportation (ODOT), contending that his automobile tire and rim were damaged as a 

proximate cause of negligence on the part of ODOT in maintaining a hazardous 

condition on Interstate 70 West in Franklin County. In his complaint, plaintiff offered a 

written description of his damage incident noting that, “I was driving west bound on 

Interstate 70 in the far left lane and as I was changing lanes into the middle lane I hit a 

large pothole in the middle lane about 3/4 of a mile from the Rome Hilliard Exit.” 

Plaintiff recalled that the damage incident occurred on February 14, 2010 at 

approximately 9:30 p.m. Plaintiff requested damage recovery in the amount of $322.39, 

the total cost of replacement parts. The $25.00 filing fee was paid and plaintiff seeks 

reimbursement of that cost along with his damage claim. 

{¶ 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 February 14, 2010 described occurrence. Defendant located the particular 

pothole “at county milepost 5.27 or state milepost 91.30 in Franklin County.” Defendant 
explained that ODOT records show no reports of a pothole at the location indicated 

were recorded prior to plaintiff’s damage event. Defendant related that ODOT received 

four complaints of potholes on Interstate 70 (on February 3, 2010, February 7, 2010, 

February 10, 2010 and February 11, 2010) “but none of them were in the same location 

as plaintiff’s.” Defendant noted that the particular section of roadway, “has an average 

daily traffic count between 76,070 to 97,520 vehicles,” yet no prior complaints were 

received regarding a pothole at milepost 91.30 on Interstate 70. 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.” Defendant asserted that plaintiff failed 

to offer any evidence to prove his property damage was attributable to ODOT 

personnel. Defendant contended that plaintiff failed to prove his property damage was 

proximately caused by negligent maintenance on the part of ODOT. Defendant 

explained that the ODOT “Franklin 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 at milepost 91.30 on Interstate 70 the 

last time that section of roadway was inspected before February 14, 2010. Defendant’s 

maintenance records show “that one (1) pothole patching operation was conducted in 

the general vicinity of plaintiff’s incident” during the six-month period prior to February 

14, 2010. The maintenance records (copy submitted) indicates that ODOT crews 

patched potholes in the area including milepost 91.30 on January 14, 2010. Defendant 

contended that plaintiff failed to produce evidence to establish the length of time the 

particular pothole existed prior to 9:30 p.m. on February 14, 2010. Defendant stated 

that, “if ODOT personnel had detected any defects they would have been promptly 

scheduled for repair.” 

{¶ 3} To prevail on a claim of negligence, plaintiff 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, 

“[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. 

{¶ 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 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. There is no evidence that defendant had actual notice of the 

pothole on Interstate 70 prior to February 14, 2010. 

{¶ 6} 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 evidence 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. 

{¶ 7} 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 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. No evidence has shown that ODOT had constructive notice of the pothole. 

{¶ 8} 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. The fact that defendant’s “Maintenance History” reflects pothole 

repairs were made in the vicinity of plaintiff’s incident during January 2010 does not 

prove negligent maintenance of the roadway on the part of ODOT. 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. Therefore, defendant is not 

liable for any damage that plaintiff may have suffered from the pothole. 

{¶ 9} In the instant claim, plaintiff has failed to introduce evidence sufficient to 

prove that defendant maintain a known hazardous roadway condition. Plaintiff failed to 

prove that his property damage was connected to any conduct under the control of 

defendant, 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 

MARK COPELAND 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-03631-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 defendant. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff. 

 

 ________________________________ 

 MILES C. DURFEY 

 Clerk 

Entry cc: 

Mark Copeland Jolene M. Molitoris, Director 

156 Ballman Road Department of Transportation 

Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068 1980 West Broad Street 

 Columbus, Ohio 43223 

RDK/laa 

8/4 

Filed 10/15/10 

Sent to S.C. reporter 2/2/11