[Cite as Steed v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2011-Ohio-6974.]

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

JUDITH STEED 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2011-08016-AD 

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

{¶1} Plaintiff, Judith Steed, filed this action against defendant, Ohio Department 

of Transportation (ODOT), contending that her vehicle was damaged as a proximate 

result of negligence on the part of ODOT in maintaining a hazardous condition on State 

Route 619. In her complaint, plaintiff described the particular damage event noting that 

she was traveling on State Route 619 when she hit a pothole that was unavoidable. 

Plaintiff incurred damage to the wheel, tire and valve. Plaintiff recalled the damage 

event occurred on May 16, 2011, at approximately 10:30 a.m. Plaintiff seeks recovery 

of damages in the amount of $473.58, the stated total amount for a replacement tire, 

vehicle repair costs, and reimbursement of the filing fee. The $25.00 filing fee was paid. 

{¶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 incident. Defendant located plaintiff’s incident “between mileposts 9.02 and 

5.49 on SR 619 in Stark County.” Defendant denied receiving any prior calls or 

complaints about a pothole or potholes in the vicinity of that location. Defendant 

asserted that plaintiff did not offer any evidence to establish the length of time that the 

pothole existed in the area prior to plaintiff’s incident. 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 “Stark 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 May 16, 2011. Defendant argued that plaintiff has failed 

to offer any evidence to prove her property damage was attributable to any conduct on 

the part of ODOT personnel. Defendant stated that, “[a] review of the six-month 

maintenance history [record submitted] for the area in question reveals that one (1) 

pothole patching operation was conducted in the general vicinity of plaintiff’s incident.” 

{¶4} For plaintiff to prevail on a claim of negligence, she must prove, by a 

preponderance of the evidence, that defendant owed her a duty, that it breached that 

duty, and that the breach proximately caused her 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. 

{¶5} 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. 

{¶6} 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 

pothole on SR 619 prior to May 16, 2011. 

{¶7} 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. 

{¶8} 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. 92AP1183. Despite the arguments raised in her September 8, 2011 response, plaintiff has 

failed to show that ODOT had constructive notice of the pothole. The pothole patching 

operations cited by plaintiff occurred after her damage occurred and in the opposite, 

eastbound lanes of SR 619. 

{¶9} 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. 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. Indeed, the photographs submit by defendant establish that the roadway was in 
relatively good condition. Therefore, defendant is not liable for any damage plaintiff may 

have suffered from the pothole. 

{¶10} 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 her 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 

JUDITH STEED 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2011-08016-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: 

Judith Steed Jerry Wray, Director 

24831 Sherman Street Department of Transportation 

Homeworth, Ohio 44634 1980 West Broad Street 

 Columbus, Ohio 43223 

9/14 

Filed 9/28/11 

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