[Cite as Williams v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2010-Ohio-6335.]

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 

DENNIS WILLIAMS 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-06184-AD 

Clerk Miles C. Durfey 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

{¶ 1} Plaintiff, Dennis Williams, filed this action against defendant, Department 

of Transportation (ODOT), contending that his 2002 Mercury Sable was damaged as a 

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

condition on Interstate 71 in Cuyahoga County. In his complaint, plaintiff described the 

particular damage event noting that: “I was traveling N. Bound on I-71 exiting off I-71 to 

490 Exit I hit a chuck hole which broke my Rt. front strut, spring, mount damaged tire.” 

In his complaint, plaintiff recorded that the damage incident occurred “[o]n Saturday 

April 27, 2010 4:35 p.m.” Plaintiff seeks recovery of damages in the amount of $907.20, 

the cost of replacement parts and related repair expenses he incurred on April 7, 2010 

when he paid to have his car repaired. When the 2002 Mercury Sable was received for 

repair on March 29, 2010 the vehicle had an odometer reading of 114,416 miles. The 

filing fee was paid. Defendant advised that plaintiff reported his damage incident 

occurred on Saturday, March 27, 2010 at approximately 4:34 p.m. and he telephoned 

ODOT on April 5, 2010 to complaint that his car was damaged by “potholes while on the 

ramp from 71 NB to 480 EB.” 
{¶ 2} Defendant denied liability based on the contention that no ODOT 

personnel had any knowledge of any roadway defects on Interstate 71 prior to plaintiff’s 

March 27, 2010 incident. Defendant related that ODOT’s “investigation indicates that 

the location of Plaintiff’s William’s incident would be at approximately state milepost 

247.53 or county milepost 18.87 on I-71 in Cuyahoga County.” Defendant denied 

receiving any prior calls or complaints about a pothole or potholes in the vicinity of that 

location despite the fact that “[t]his section of roadway has an average daily traffic 

count” of over 133,000 vehicles. Defendant asserted that plaintiff did not offer any 

evidence to establish the length of time that any pothole existed in the vicinity of 

milepost 247.53 on Interstate 71 prior to 4:35 p.m. on March 27, 2010. 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.” 

{¶ 3} Additionally, defendant contended that plaintiff did not offer any evidence 

to prove that the roadway was negligently maintained. Defendant advised that the 

ODOT “Cuyahoga 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 in the vicinity of plaintiff’s incident the last time 

that section of roadway was inspected prior to March 27, 2010. The claim file is devoid 

of any inspection record. Defendant argued that plaintiff has failed to offer any evidence 

to prove his property damage was attributable to any conduct on the part of ODOT 

personnel. Defendant asserted that “I-71 was in good condition at the time and in the 

general vicinity of plaintiff’s incident.” Defendant stated that, “[a] review of the six-month 

maintenance history (record submitted) for the area in question reveals that three (3) 

pothole patching operations were conducted in the general vicinity and the last repair 

was on February 5, 2010.” Earlier patching operations were performed on December 

22, 2009 and January 15, 2010. The submitted “Maintenance History” reflects pothole 

patching operations and no other activity. Defendant noted, “that if ODOT personnel 

had detected any defects they would have been promptly scheduled for repair.” 

{¶ 4} Plaintiff filed a response asserting that the pothole his vehicle struck “still 

exists (with no sign of asphalt repair).” Plaintiff did not offer any evidence to establish 

the length of time the particular pothole existed prior to 4:35 p.m. on March 27, 2010. 

{¶ 5} 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. 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. 

{¶ 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 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 conditions or defects 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 

potholes on Interstate 71 prior to the afternoon of March 27, 2010. 

{¶ 8} Therefore, to find liability, plaintiff must prove that ODOT had constructive 

notice of the defects. 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. 

{¶ 9} 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, 31 Ohio Misc. 2d 1, 31 

OBR 64, 507 N.E. 2d 1179. “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. 

{¶ 10} 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 potholes 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 on various occasions 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 conditions. Herlihy 

v. Ohio Department of Transportation (1999), 99-07011-AD. Therefore, defendant is 

not liable for any damage plaintiff may have suffered from the pothole. 

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

prove that defendant maintained known hazardous roadway conditions. Plaintiff failed 

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

defendant, or 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 

DENNIS WILLIAMS 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-06184-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: 

Dennis Williams Jolene M. Molitoris, Director 

3817 Brendan Lane #6 Department of Transportation 

N. Olmsted, Ohio 44070 1980 West Broad Street 
 Columbus, Ohio 43223 

RDK/laa 

7/15 

Filed 9/8/10 

Sent to S.C. reporter 12/17/10