[Cite as Bohlander v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., Dist. 8, 2011-Ohio-6990.]

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

DEANNA M. BOHLANDER 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DISTRICT 8 

 Defendant

Case No. 2011-08881-AD 

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

FINDINGS OF FACT 

{¶1} In her complaint, plaintiff, Deanna Bohlander, states that on May 3, 2011, 

at approximately 6:20 a.m., she “was traveling 75 southbound” when she “hit a huge 

pothole right before the Ezzard Charles Dr. exit” that immediately damaged her tire and 

rim. 

{¶2} Plaintiff contends her property damage was proximately caused by 

negligence on the part of defendant, Department of Transportation (DOT), in failing to 

maintain the roadway. Consequently, plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover 

$630.90, the cost of a replacement tire, rim, and reimbursement of the roadside 

assistance service fee. The filing fee was paid. 

{¶3} Defendant denies liability in this matter based on the contention that no 

DOT personnel had any knowledge of the pothole prior to plaintiff’s property-damage 

event. Defendant states the pothole was located at milepost 1.42 on I-75 in Hamilton 

County. Defendant denies receiving any reports of the damage-causing pothole prior to 

the time which plaintiff encountered it. 

{¶4} Furthermore, defendant asserts plaintiff has not produced evidence to 

show DOT negligently maintained the roadway. Defendant explains that the DOT 
Hamilton County Manager “inspects all state roadways within the county at least two 

times a month.” Apparently no potholes were discovered at milepost 1.42 on I-75 the 

last time this roadway was inspected prior to May 3, 2011. Defendant stated that “[a] 

review of the six-month maintenance history [record submitted] also reveals that general 

maintenance and inspection is conducted to ensure a properly maintained roadway.” 

{¶5} Plaintiff did not file a response. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

{¶6} 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. 

{¶7} 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. 

{¶8} To prove a breach of duty by defendant to maintain the highways plaintiff 

must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that DOT 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. No evidence has shown that defendant had actual notice of the 

damage-causing pothole. 

{¶9} 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 (pothole) developed. Spires v. Ohio Highway Department (1988), 61 

Ohio Misc. 2d 262, 577 N.E. 2d 458. Size of the 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. There is insufficient evidence to show defendant had 
constructive notice of the pothole. 

{¶10} 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. 

{¶11} Plaintiff has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that 

defendant failed to discharge a duty owed to her or that her property damage was 

proximately caused by defendant’s negligence. Plaintiff failed to show that the damagecausing pothole was connected to any conduct under the control of defendant or that 

there was any 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. 

 
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 

DEANNA M. BOHLANDER 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DISTRICT 8 

 Defendant

Case No. 2011-08881-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: 

Deanna M. Bohlander Jerry Wray, Director 

2873 Shaffer Avenue Department of Transportation 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45211 1980 West Broad Street 

 Columbus, Ohio 43223 

9/23 

Filed 9/29/11 

Sent to S.C. reporter 2/6/12