Court Opinion

ID: 2695333
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-08-02 00:08:16.431412+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:00:24.304135
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Clay v. Dept. of Transp., 2011-Ohio-3543.]

                                       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

JIMMIE D. CLAY

        Plaintiff

        V.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

        Defendant

        Case No. 2010-11731-AD

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert

MEMORANDUM DECISION

        {¶ 1} Plaintiff, Jimmie D. Clay, filed this action against defendant, Department of
Transportation (ODOT), contending his 2002 Ford Mustang was damaged as a
proximate cause of negligence on the part of ODOT in maintaining a hazardous
condition on Interstate 270 in Franklin County. In his complaint, plaintiff described his
damage incident noting: “I was traveling west on 270 and hit a pothole; broke my rim,
blew my tire out; and put damage on front fender.” Plaintiff requested damages in the
amount of $1,093.22, the total estimated cost of replacement parts and related repair
expense.       Plaintiff did not provide any date when his described damage incident
occurred, although all submitted repair estimates bear the date September 15, 2010.
Defendant advised plaintiff’s stated damage incident occurred on September 11, 2010.
The 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 September 11, 2010 described occurrence. Defendant located the particular
pothole “between mileposts 4.97 to 2.13 on I-270 in Franklin County.”               Defendant
explained that ODOT records show no reports of a pothole at the location recorded prior
to plaintiff’s damage event. Defendant related that ODOT received ten complaints of
potholes on Interstate 270 “from July to September 2010, and only one is close to the
location of plaintiff’s incident.”
       {¶ 3} Defendant argued that plaintiff did not provide any evidence to establish
the length of time the particular pothole between mileposts 4.97 to 2.13 was present on
the roadway prior to September 11, 2010. Defendant suggested that, “it is more likely
than not the pothole existed in that location for only a relatively short amount of time
before plaintiff’s incident.”
       {¶ 4} Additionally, defendant contended that plaintiff did not offer any evidence
to prove that the roadway was negligently maintained. Defendant advised that the
ODOT “Franklin 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 September 11, 2010. Defendant asserted that plaintiff
did not prove his personal 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 three (3) pothole patching
operations were conducted in the same location as plaintiff’s incident.” Defendant’s
submitted records show ODOT crews patched potholes in the vicinity of plaintiff’s
damage occurrence on March 17, 2010, March 21, 2010, and March 24, 2010.
Defendant noted, “that if ODOT personnel had detected any defects they would have
been promptly scheduled for repair.”        Defendant also noted, “[t]he roadway was in
relatively good condition at the time of plaintiff’s incident.
       {¶ 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} Generally, 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.       There is no evidence defendant had actual notice of the
particular pothole. Therefore, for the court to find liability on a notice theory, evidence of
constructive notice of the pothole must be presented.
       {¶ 8} “[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.
       {¶ 9} 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 pothole
appeared on the roadway. Spires v. Ohio Highway Department (1988), 61 Ohio Misc.
2d 262, 577 N.E. 2d 458. No evidence was presented to establish the time that the
particular pothole was present. Size of the defect (pothole) 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. Plaintiff has failed to prove that defendant 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 condition. 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 a known hazardous roadway condition. Plaintiff failed
to prove 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

JIMMIE D. CLAY

        Plaintiff

        v.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

        Defendant

         Case No. 2010-11731-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:

Jimmie D. Clay                                    Jerry Wray, Director
8621 Alley Branch                                 Department of Transportation
Catlettsburg, Kentucky 41129                      1980 West Broad Street
                                                  Columbus, Ohio 43223

RDK/laa
3/29
Filed 4/7/11
Sent to S.C. reporter 7/8/11