[Cite as Roberts v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2015-Ohio-4860.]

IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

BRUCE ROBERTS 

Plaintiff 

v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Defendant 

Case No. 2015-00181-AD 

Clerk Mark H. Reed 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

{¶1} Bruce Roberts (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) filed this claim on March 9, 2015 

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

the Plaintiff alleged that on February 16, 2015, while he was traveling on SR 78 in 

Hocking County, he did on two separate incidents run over road reflectors that had been 

pulled loose from the roadway by an ODOT snowplow that was engaged in snow 

removal on that day. Plaintiff references a conversation with the ODOT snowplow 

driver, wherein the driver admits that his acts caused the reflectors to come loose from 

the roadway. As a result of striking the reflectors, Plaintiff claims he had to replace two 

of his tires for a total cost of $271.76. Plaintiff provided no insurance information. 

{¶2} In an Investigation Report filed by ODOT on May 15, 2015, there is no 

admission by the agency as to whether or not their snowplow driver dislodged the loose 

reflectors. Instead, ODOT maintains that as it was not aware of any loose reflectors on 

this section of SR 78 prior to the date of Plaintiff’s accident. The position of ODOT is 

that there was no negligence on the part of the agency and therefore the agency has no 

liability for Plaintiff’s loss. 

{¶3} In claims for road damage, even if the Court accepts the Plaintiff’s allegation 

that the actions of the ODOT snowplow driver caused his loss, it is still required that the 
Case No. 2015-00181-AD - 2 - MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Plaintiff prove that there was some act of negligence on the part of ODOT. It is on this 

element that Plaintiff’s claim fails. There is no evidence that the snowplow driver 

conducted his work in an unreasonable or otherwise unsafe manner. Rather, it is 

probable that in carrying out his duties in a workmanlike fashion, the driver dislodged 

two reflectors that were already loose to begin with. That the reflectors were loose 

would have been unknown to the Department prior to Plaintiff’s accident. Further, it is 

unlikely that loose reflectors would have been discovered even during routine 

maintenance operations conducted by ODOT in the time immediately prior to Plaintiff’s 

accident. 

{¶4} Under Ohio law (Ohio Revised Code 5501.41), ODOT is given broad 

authority and responsibility to conduct snow removal operations. Absent proof that this 

removal was not done in a safe or reasonable manner, the court will not substitute its 

judgment in replacement of that of the agency charged by law with this activity. 

{¶5} Finally, the court notes that the department is not required to be the absolute 

insurer of motorist’s safety while they are traveling on state highways. In dangerous 

conditions such as that encountered by the plaintiff on February 16, 2015, accidents are 

often unavoidable. Thus, the plaintiff’s accident can be more attributed to the adverse 

weather conditions that were present on that date and time than to any negligent action 

on the part of ODOT. For this reason, the claim must fail. 

IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

BRUCE ROBERTS 
 

Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2015-00181-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: 

Bruce Roberts Jerry Wray, Director 

13870 Railroad Street Ohio Department of Transportation 

P.O. Box 183 1980 West Broad Street 

Murray, Ohio 43144 Mail Stop 1500 

 Columbus, Ohio 43223 

 

Filed 6/12/15 

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