Wunderle v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as Wunderle v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2016-Ohio-1108.]
    BRIAN WUNDERLE                                        Case No. 2015-00851-AD
    Plaintiff                                      Clerk Mark H. Reed
    v.
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    OHIO DEPARTMENT OF
    TRANSPORTATION
    Defendant
    {¶1} Plaintiff Brian Wunderle (hereinafter “plaintiff”) filed this claim on October 1,
    2015 to recover damages which occurred when his 2012 Honda Civic was struck by a
    piece of debris on September 11, 2015 while traveling under the Hudson Road bridge
    on Interstate 71 in Franklin County, Ohio. This road is a public road maintained by the
    Ohio Department of Transportation (hereinafter “ODOT"). On this date, this section of
    the interstate was under construction by Complete General Construction Company.
    Plaintiff’s vehicle sustained damages in the amount of $2,949.51. Plaintiff maintains a
    collision insurance deductible of $250.00.
    {¶2} The facts of the case are as follows: The plaintiff’s vehicle was damaged
    when a piece of debris from a construction site on the Hudson Road overpass fell and
    struck and shattered the rear window of his vehicle. This overpass was part of the
    construction site of the Complete General Construction Company, who was working on
    a road improvement project pursuant to contract with ODOT.                 Both plaintiff and a
    witness saw the debris fall from the work site hitting plaintiff’s vehicle. In addition to the
    broken window, the window frame was damaged as well.
    {¶3} In this action, ODOT stands in the position of an employer, while the
    Complete General Construction Company may be regarded as an independent
    contractor. The general rule of law is that an employer is not liable for the negligent
    acts of an independent contractor.             Pusey v. Bator (2002), 
    94 Ohio St. 3d 275
    , 762
    Case No. 2015-00851-AD                        -2-               MEMORANDUM DECISION
    N.E.2d 968.      However, “[o]ne who employs an independent contractor to do work
    involving a special danger to others which the employer knows or has reason to know to
    be inherent in or normal to the work, or which he contemplates or has reason to
    contemplate when making the contract, is subject to liability for physical harm caused to
    such others by the contractor's failure to take reasonable precautions against such
    danger.”      Bohme, Inc. v. Sprint Internatl. Communications Corp. (1996), 115 Ohio
    App.3d 723, 736, 
    686 N.E.2d 300
    , citing Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts (1965),
    Section 427.     See, also, Richman Bros. v. Miller (1936), 
    131 Ohio St. 424
    , 
    6 Ohio Op. 119
    ,
    
    3 N.E.2d 360
    .     In 
    Pusey, supra
    , the Supreme Court of Ohio explained that when work
    is inherently dangerous, “the employer hiring the independent contractor has a duty to
    see that the work is done with reasonable care and cannot, by hiring an independent
    contractor, insulate himself or herself from liability for injuries resulting to others from the
    negligence of the independent contractor or its employees.” 
    Id. at 279-280,
    762 N.E.2d
    968
    .    In other words, when a certain task is inherently dangerous, an employer
    becomes liable for the negligence of a subcontractor in “failing to take precautions
    against the danger involved in the work itself, which the employer should contemplate at
    the time of his contract.”      Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts (1965), Section 427,
    Comment d.
    {¶4} In determining whether or not ODOT is negligent in this case, the Court
    must determine whether road construction on an interstate highway is an inherently or
    intrinsically dangerous activity.    “Ohio courts have generally treated the issue of
    whether employment is inherently dangerous as a question of law to be determined by
    the Court.”    Tackett v. Columbia Energy Group Serv. Corp. (Nov. 20, 2001), Franklin
    App. No. 01AP-89, 
    2001 WL 1463383
    .            See, e.g., Bond v. Howard Corp. (1995), 
    72 Ohio St. 3d 332
    , 
    650 N.E.2d 416
    ; 
    Pusey, supra
    , 94 Ohio St.3d at 275, 
    762 N.E.2d 968
    .
    Case No. 2015-00851-AD                      -3-              MEMORANDUM DECISION
    {¶5} The Supreme Court defined work as being inherently dangerous when it
    “creates a peculiar risk of harm to others unless special precautions are taken.” 
    Id. at 279,
    762 N.E.2d 968
    . “[I]t is not necessary that the work be such that it cannot be done
    without a risk of harm to others, or even that it be such that it involves a high risk of
    such harm.     It is sufficient that the work involves a risk, recognizable in advance, of
    physical harm to others, which is inherent in the work itself.” 
    Id. at 280,
    762 N.E.2d 968
    ,
    citing Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts (1965), Section 427, Comment b.
    {¶6} Applying this standard to the facts of this case, the Court concludes that
    roadway construction on an overpass over an interstate highway is an inherently
    dangerous activity and that, as a matter of law, such activity does create a peculiar risk
    of harm to others. Additionally, the fact that debris was falling from the overpass onto
    passing motorists underneath is sufficient to show that at least in this instance, the
    contractor failed to take reasonable precautions against such danger.            Thus the
    defendant, Ohio Department of Transportation, may be held liable for plaintiff’s losses in
    this case.
    {¶7} Plaintiff’s claimed repair costs were $2,949.51 and his insurance deductible
    is $250.00. Ohio law requires recoveries against the state to be reduced by any
    available insurance. Plaintiff’s recovery is therefore limited to $250.00 plus the $25.00
    filing fee, which may be reimbursed as compensable damages pursuant to the holding
    in Bailey v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 62 Ohio Misc 2d 19, 
    587 N.E.2d 990
    (Ct. of Cl. 1990).
    Case No. 2015-00851-AD                       -4-              MEMORANDUM DECISION
    BRIAN WUNDERLE                                Case No. 2015-00851-AD
    Plaintiff                            Clerk Mark H. Reed
    v.
    ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE
    OHIO DEPARTMENT OF                            DETERMINATION
    TRANSPORTATION
    Defendant
    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 the plaintiff in the amount of $275.00, which includes the filing fee. Court costs are
    assessed against defendant.
    MARK H. REED
    Clerk
    Entry cc:
    Brian Wunderle                                 Jerry Wray, Director
    67 Warren Street                               Ohio Department Of Transportation
    Columbus, Ohio 43215                           1980 West Broad Street
    Mail Stop 1500
    Columbus, Ohio 43223
    Filed 2/2/16
    Sent to S.C. Reporter 3/18/16
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2015-00851-AD

Judges: Reed

Filed Date: 2/2/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/18/2016