[Cite as Predescu v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., Dist. 12, 2011-Ohio-2753.]

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

GHEORGHE PREDESCU 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DISTRICT 12 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-11714-AD 

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

{¶ 1} Plaintiff, Gheorghe Predescu, filed this action against defendant, 

Department of Transportation (ODOT), contending his 2003 Chrysler Sebring was 

damaged as a proximate cause of negligence on the part of ODOT in maintaining a 

hazardous condition on Interstate 480 in Cuyahoga County. Plaintiff advised he was 

traveling “west on I 480 on the Ridge Road ramp” at rush hour on October 29, 2010 

trailing an SUV that “ran over a railroad tie that was in the middle of the ramp.” Plaintiff 

related he did not see the railroad tie and his car in turn “ran it over, damage all four 

tires and possibly my exhaust or shocks.” Plaintiff submitted photographs depicting the 

damage-causing wooden object that he took after pulling the object from the traveled 

portion of the roadway to the berm area. The object depicted appears to be an 

elongated block of wood similar to a railroad tie. In his complaint, plaintiff requested 

damages in the amount of $2,435.52, representing claims for automobile replacement 

parts, towing, car rental expense, gasoline, and work loss. The filing fee was paid. 

{¶ 2} Defendant conducted an investigation and determined that the damagecausing incident occurred at milepost 13.04 on Interstate 480 in Cuyahoga County. 
Defendant asserts that it had no “notice of the subject condition prior to” the damagecausing incident. Defendant, “believes that the debris existed in that location for only a 

relatively short amount of time before plaintiff’s incident.” Defendant asserted that 

plaintiff failed to produce any evidence to establish the length of time the debris 

condition existed prior to 5:00 p.m. on October 29, 2010. Defendant also asserted that 

plaintiff did not offer any evidence to show the damage-causing debris condition was 

attributable to any conduct on the part of ODOT. 

{¶ 3} Defendant pointed out that defendant’s “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 debris was discovered at 

milepost 13.04 on Interstate 480 the last time that specific section of roadway was 

inspected prior to October 29, 2010. Defendant reviewed a six-month maintenance 

jurisdiction history of the area in question and found twenty-eight litter pick-ups were 

performed in the area with the last occurring on October 25, 2010 and according to 

defendant, any debris found would have been picked up. 

{¶ 4} Plaintiff filed a response noting, “I can not present evidence to indicate 

how long the debris existed in the roadway prior to the incident.” Plaintiff stated, “I have 

the right to drive on (the) roadway to work without incidents.” Plaintiff maintained he is 

entitled to all damages listed in his complaint, plus $940.00 for newly discovered 

suspension damage to his car. 

{¶ 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. Plaintiff 

has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he suffered a loss 

and that this loss was proximately caused by defendant’s negligence. Barnum v. Ohio 

State University (1977), 76-0368-AD. 

{¶ 6} 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. 

{¶ 7} 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. 

{¶ 8} 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. 

{¶ 9} Defendant professed liability cannot be established when requisite notice 

of the damage-causing conditions cannot be proven, Generally, defendant is only liable 

for roadway conditions of which it has notice, but fails to correct. Bussard. However, 

proof of notice of a dangerous condition is not necessary when defendant’s own agents 

actively caused such condition. See Bello v. City of Cleveland (1922), 106 Ohio St. 94, 

138 N.E. 526, at paragraph one of the syllabus; Sexton v. Ohio Department of 

Transportation (1996), 94-13861. Plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence to prove 

that his property damage was caused by a defective condition created by ODOT or that 

defendant knew about the particular wood debris condition prior to 5:00 p.m. on October 

29, 2010. 

{¶ 10} Ordinarily, to recover in a suit involving injury proximately caused by 

roadway conditions including wood block debris, plaintiff must prove that either: 1) 

defendant had actual or constructive notice of the debris condition 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. Plaintiff has not provided any evidence to prove 

that ODOT had actual notice of the damage-causing condition. Therefore, in order to 
recover plaintiff must offer proof of defendant’s constructive notice of the condition as 

evidence to establish negligent maintenance. 

{¶ 11} “[C]onstructive notice is that which the law regards as sufficient to give 

notice and is regarded as a substitute for actual notice or knowledge.” In re Estate of 

Fahle (1950), 90 Ohio App. 195, 197-198, 48 O.O. 231, 105 N.E. 2d 429. “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. In order for there to be a finding of 

constructive notice, plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, 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; Gelarden v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., Dist. 4, 

Ct. of Cl. No. 2007-02521-AD, 2007-Ohio-3047. 

{¶ 12} Plaintiff has not produced any evidence to indicate the length of time that 

the wood debris was present on the roadway prior to the incident forming the basis of 

this claim. Plaintiff has not shown that defendant had actual notice of the condition. 

Also, 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 wood block debris 

appeared on the roadway. Spires v. Ohio Highway Department (1988), 61 Ohio Misc. 

2d 262, 577 N.E. 2d 458. There is no indication that defendant had constructive notice 

of the wood debris on the roadway. 

{¶ 13} 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. 

Defendant submitted evidence showing that ODOT personnel were periodically 

performing work activities on the particular section of Interstate 480 where plaintiff’s 

damage incident occurred. Plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove 

that defendant maintained a hazardous condition on the roadway which was the 

substantial or sole cause of his property damage. Plaintiff has failed to prove, by a 

preponderance of the evidence, that any ODOT roadway maintenance activity created a 
nuisance. Plaintiff has not submitted evidence to prove that a negligent act or omission 

on the part of defendant caused the damage to his property. Hall v. Ohio Department of 

Transportation (2000), 99-12963-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 

GHEORGHE PREDESCU 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DISTRICT 12 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-11714-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: 

Gheorghe Predescu Jerry Wray, Director 

6501 Flowerdale Avenue Department of Transportation 

Cleveland, Ohio 44144 1980 West Broad Street 

 Columbus, Ohio 43223 

RDK/laa 

2/8 

Filed 3/9/11 

Sent to S.C. reporter 5/27/11