[Cite as Smith v. Bur. of Motor Vehicles, 2012-Ohio-3243.]

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

PAMELA D. SMITH 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2012-01295-AD 

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

FINDINGS OF FACT 

{¶1} On January 5, 2012, at approximately 6:30 p.m., plaintiff, Pamela Smith, 

was stopped and detained by two Findlay, Ohio police officers. According to plaintiff, 

she was stopped for driving with her parking lights on. The officers apparently checked 

plaintiff’s driver’s license status and communicated to her that it was listed by 

defendant, Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV), as suspended. Incident to the traffic stop, 

plaintiff’s driver’s license and registration were seized and her car was impounded. 

Plaintiff asserted the suspension was in error and she was able to have the suspension 

cleared the next day. Although her car was subsequently released, plaintiff asserted 

that she missed a day of work and “had to hire someone” to drive her to various 

locations to retrieve her license and her vehicle. Plaintiff filed this complaint 

seeking to recover $373.00, for work loss, towing and impound fees, and costs incurred 

to hire a driver for one day. The $25.00 filing fee was paid. 

{¶2} Defendant filed an investigation report denying liability and pointing out 

that plaintiff did not provide any receipts or pay stubs to document her damages. 
Defendant explained that when plaintiff applied for an Ohio driver’s license at the deputy 

registrar’s office, the deputy registrar learned that plaintiff’s Tennessee driver’s license 

was under suspension. Consequently, plaintiff was prevented from obtaining an Ohio 

driver’s license. According to defendant, a report was then automatically generated to 

notify BMV of the Tennessee suspension and, based upon this report, BMV “sent 

Plaintiff a September 15, 2010 notice stating her Ohio driving privileges would be 

cancelled because of the license suspension in Tennessee.” Defendant acknowledged 

that plaintiff’s Tennessee suspension was lifted on September 23, 2010, and that on 

September 25, 2010, a deputy registrar issued plaintiff an Ohio driver’s license. 

{¶3} Defendant maintained that BMV was not notified that the Tennessee 

suspension had been lifted and that therefore BMV was not negligent for continuing to 

list plaintiff’s license as suspended. According to BMV, either plaintiff or the state of 

Tennessee was responsible for notifying BMV that plaintiff’s suspension had been 

cleared. Defendant also pointed out that BMV “corrected its records once Plaintiff 

brought the issue to its attention.” Defendant submitted a copy of the notice of 

cancellation sent to plaintiff on September 15, 2010. 

{¶4} Plaintiff filed a response asserting that she never received the September 

15, 2010 notice of suspension. In addition, plaintiff described the actions she had to 

take to retrieve her vehicle and license which required the assistance of another driver 

to accomplish. Plaintiff submitted a receipt for $94.79 she paid in towing and impound 

fees as well as a receipt showing she paid $75.00 to D. Curlis for taxi services. 

{¶5} Defendant apparently suspended plaintiff's driver's license because the 

suspension in Tennessee was in effect on September 4, 2010, when plaintiff applied for 

an Ohio driver’s license. Defendant admitted it removed the suspension on January 6, 

2012, after plaintiff called and notified BMV of the error. 

{¶6} After reviewing all the information contained in defendant's investigation 

report, the court finds defendant's argument is not well-taken. “‘Notice to an agent of [a 

corporation] entrusted with the management of its business is notice to the corporation 

in transactions conducted by such agent acting for the corporation, in the scope of his 

authority, whether the knowledge of the agent was acquired in the course of the 

particular dealing or on some prior occasion.’" First Nat'l Bank v. Burns (1913), 88 Ohio 

St. 434, 444, 103 N.E. 93, quoting Craige et al. v. Hadley (1885), 99 N. Y. 131, 1 N.E. 
537. Indeed, “‘[i]t is the rule, that the knowledge of the agent is the knowledge of his 

principal, and notice to the agent of the existence of material facts is notice thereof to 

the principal, who is taken to know everything about a transaction which his agent in it 

knows.’” First Nat’l Bank quoting Holden v. New York & Erie Bank, 72 N. Y. 286. 

{¶7} Likewise, the court finds that notice to BMV’s agent constitutes notice to 

BMV. See Garcia v. Bureau of Motor Vehicles (2001), 2001-01515-AD, Allen v. Bureau 

of Motor Vehicles, 2010-10793-AD, 2011-Ohio-3855. 

{¶8} The trier of facts finds that defendant has failed to prove it properly 

recorded plaintiff’s driver’s license status after plaintiff received an Ohio driver’s license 

from a deputy registrar on September 25, 2010. Accordingly, the court finds defendant 

is liable to plaintiff as a result of defendant’s improper and erroneous record keeping. 

{¶9} Plaintiff has indicated she had no knowledge her license had been 

suspended until January 5, 2012, when she was stopped and her vehicle was 

impounded. Plaintiff professed the erroneous suspension notice caused her to miss 

work and to incur out of pocket expense as a result. Plaintiff offered sufficient proof of 

her damages claimed with the exception of her work loss. Specifically, plaintiff provided 

documentation of the amounts paid for towing and impound fees as well as the cost to 

hire a driver for one day. Since plaintiff’s license and registration were taken by police 

officers, and her car was impounded, she obviously was forced to find substitute 

transportation in order to regain her property. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

{¶10} Resulting damages may be recovered when a plaintiff proves, by a 

preponderance of the evidence, her driver's license was erroneously listed as 

suspended by defendant. Ankney v. Bureau of Motor Vehicles (1998), 97-11045-AD; 

Serbanescu v. Bureau of Motor Vehicles (1994), 93-15038-AD; Black v. Bureau of 

Motor Vehicles (1996), 95-01441-AD. These damages must directly flow from 

defendant's failure to convey accurate information. Henighan v. Ohio Dept. of Public 

Safety (1997), 97-01619-AD; Jordan v. Bureau of Motor Vehicles (1998), 97-10341-AD. 

{¶11} Plaintiff has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that her driver's 

license was improperly listed as suspended by defendant. McGee v. Ohio Bureau of 

Motor Vehicles (1997), 97-03999-AD. Defendant is liable to plaintiff for damages 

plaintiff can prove resulted from defendant's failure to provide correct information. 
Partlow v. Bureau of Motor Vehicles (1997), 97-07820-AD. In the instant claim, plaintiff 

has proven her financial loss resulted from negligence attributable to defendant. 

{¶12} The assessment of damages is a matter within the province of the trier of 

fact. Litchfield v. Morris (1985), 25 Ohio App. 3d 42, 25 OBR 115, 495 N.E.2d 462. 

Where the existence of damage is established, the evidence need only tend to show the 

basis for the computation of damages to a fair degree of probability. Brewer v. Brothers 

(1992), 82 Ohio App. 3d 148, 611 N.E.2d 492. Only reasonable certainty as to the 

amount of damages is required, which is that degree of certainty of which the nature of 

the case admits. Bemmes v. Pub. Emp. Retirement Sys. Of Ohio (1995), 102 Ohio App. 

3d 782, 658 N.E.2d 31. Defendant is liable to plaintiff for her towing and impound fees 

as well as the cost to hire a driver for one day which totals $169.79. Bumpus v. Bureau 

of Motor Vehicles, Ct. of Cl. No. 2004-01117-AD, 2004-Ohio-4589. Defendant is also 

liable to plaintiff for the $25.00 filing fee, pursuant to the holding in Bailey v. Ohio 

Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1990), 62 Ohio Misc. 2d 19, 587 N.E.2d 

990. 
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 

PAMELA D. SMITH 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2012-01295-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 plaintiff in the amount of $194.79, which includes the filing fee. Court costs are 

assessed against defendant. 

 

 DANIEL R. BORCHERT 

 Deputy Clerk 

Entry cc: 

Pamela D. Smith Winston M. Ford 

110 19th Street Ohio Department of Public Safety 

Findlay, Ohio 45840 1970 West Broad Street, 

 Suite 531 

 Columbus, Ohio 43223 
011 

Filed 4/5/12 

sent to S.C. Reporter 7/18/12