Court Opinion

ID: 2695677
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-08-02 00:11:51.667034+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:01:01.360203
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Wolford v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., Dist. 8, 2010-Ohio-5831.]

                                       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

DIANA WOLFORD

        Plaintiff

        v.

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DISTRICT 8

        Defendant

Case No. 2010-03070-AD

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert

MEMORANDUM DECISION

        {¶ 1} On January 31, 2010, plaintiff, Diana Wolford, was traveling east on
Interstate 275 in Hamilton County, when her 2008 Hyundai Sonata struck a large
pothole causing tire and wheel damage to the vehicle. Plaintiff asserted the property
damage to her car was proximately caused by negligence on the part of defendant,
Department of Transportation (ODOT), in failing to maintain the roadway free of
hazardous conditions such as potholes. Plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover
damages in the amount of $218.40, the total cost of replacement parts and related
repairs. The $25.00 filing fee was paid and plaintiff requested reimbursement of that
cost along with her damage claim.
        {¶ 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 January 31, 2010 described occurrence. Defendant located the pothole “at
approximately state milepost 31.00 or county milepost 13.40 on I-275 in Hamilton
County.” Defendant explained that ODOT records show no prior reports of a pothole at
the location despite the fact that the particular “section of roadway on I-275 has an
average daily traffic count between 52,590 and 62,410 vehicles.” Defendant argued
that plaintiff did not provide any evidence to establish the length of time the particular
pothole at milemarker 13.40 was present on the roadway prior to January 31, 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 evidence to
prove the roadway was negligently maintained. Defendant stated, “[a] review of the six-
month maintenance history (record submitted) for the area in question reveals that two
(2) pothole patching operations were conducted in the vicinity of plaintiff’s incident.”
The record shows these patching operations were conducted on November 10, 2009
and December 17, 2009. Defendant noted, “that if ODOT personnel had detected any
defects they would have been promptly scheduled for repair.”
       {¶ 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 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 pothole
on Interstate 90 prior to the morning of January 31, 2010.
      {¶ 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 by simply 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.
      {¶ 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 pothole 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 two occasions before that
incident 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.
       {¶ 10} 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 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

DIANA WOLFORD

      Plaintiff

      v.

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DISTRICT 8

      Defendant
      Case No. 2010-03070-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:

Diana Wolford                                    Jolene M. Molitoris, Director
5200 N. River Road                               Department of Transportation
Springfield, Ohio 45502                          1980 West Broad Street
                                                 Columbus, Ohio 43223
RDK/laa
7/12
Filed 8/9/10
Sent to S.C. reporter 11/23/10