Court Opinion

ID: 2694960
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-08-02 00:04:13.516901+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:14:21.164728
License: Public Domain

[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. 92AP-
1183. 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