Powell v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. , 2011 Ohio 6584 ( 2011 )

[Cite as Powell v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2011-Ohio-6584.]
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
JANET POWELL
Plaintiff
v.
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Defendant
Case No. 2011-05076-AD
Acting Clerk Daniel R. Borchert
MEMORANDUM DECISION
{¶1} Plaintiff, Janet Powell, filed this action against defendant, Department of
Transportation (ODOT), contending her mother’s 1999 Chevrolet Prism was damaged
as a proximate result of negligence on the part of ODOT personnel in maintaining a
hazardous condition on State Route 281 in Wood County. In her complaint, plaintiff
stated that she hit a pothole and the tire immediately deflated. Plaintiff recalled the
particular damage incident occurred on March 13, 2011, at approximately 3:30 p.m.
Plaintiff requested damages in the amount of $125.75, the total cost of a replacement
tire and rim. 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 March 13, 2011 described occurrence. Defendant located the pothole “at
approximately milepost 19.86 on SR 281 in Wood County.” Defendant explained ODOT
“did not receive any reports of the pothole or have knowledge of the pothole prior to the
incident.” Defendant argued plaintiff did not provide any evidence to establish the
length of time the particular pothole was present on the roadway prior to March 13,
2011. Defendant suggested, “it is likely the pothole existed for only a short time before
the incident.” Furthermore, defendant contended plaintiff did not offer any evidence to
prove the roadway was negligently maintained. Defendant related the ODOT “Wood
County Manager inspects all state roadways within the county at least two times a
month.” Apparently, no potholes were discovered in the vicinity of plaintiff’s incident on
SR 281 the last time that section of roadway was inspected prior to March 13, 2011.
Defendant’s maintenance records show potholes were patched in the vicinity of
plaintiff’s incident on February 8, 2011, March 1, 2011, and March 13, 2011.1
{¶3} Plaintiff did not file a response.
{¶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
1
Based upon the information submitted by defendant, the trier of facts notes that the pothole
patching operation on March 13, 2011, occurred after and in response to plaintiff’s incident.
64, 507 N.E. 2d 1179. There is no evidence defendant had actual notice of the pothole
on SR 281 prior to the afternoon of March 13, 2011.
{¶7} Therefore, to find liability plaintiff must prove 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 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 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. There is insufficient evidence to show defendant 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 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 defendant’s “Maintenance History” reflects pothole
repairs were made in the vicinity of plaintiff’s incident twice in the five weeks preceding
March 13, 2011, does not prove negligent maintenance of the roadway on the part of
ODOT. See Maynard v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., Dist. 10, Ct. of Cl. No. 2004-03730-AD,
2004-Ohio-3284; Marcis v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., Ct. of Cl. No. 2004-05830-AD, 2004-
Ohio-4830.
{¶10} Plaintiff has not produced sufficient evidence to infer 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.
Plaintiff has failed to introduce sufficient evidence to prove defendant maintained a
known hazardous roadway condition. Plaintiff has failed to prove that her property
damage was connected to any conduct under the control of defendant, defendant was
negligent in maintaining the roadway area, or that there was any 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.
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
JANET POWELL
Plaintiff
v.
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Defendant
Case No. 2011-05076-AD
Acting 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
Acting Clerk
Entry cc:
Janet Powell Jerry Wray, Director
1226 Chateau Court Department of Transportation
Findlay, Ohio 45840 1980 West Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43223
7/21
Filed 8/4/11
Sent to S.C. reporter 12/20/11