Taylor v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. , 2011 Ohio 5537 ( 2011 )

[Cite as Taylor v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2011-Ohio-5537.]
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
DAVID TAYLOR, Case No. 2011-03839-AD
Plaintiff,
v. Acting Clerk Daniel R. Borchert
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
DISTRICT 8,
Defendant. MEMORANDUM DECISION
FINDINGS OF FACT
{¶ 1} In his complaint, plaintiff, David Taylor, stated that on February 27, 2011,
at approximately 8:00 a.m., he was traveling south bound on I-75 in the left lane when “I
hit a large pothole at the 9.5 mile marker right under the Paddock overpass. The
pothole was so deep that it broke the belts in my left front tire.”
{¶ 2} Plaintiff contends his property damage was proximately caused by
negligence on the part of defendant, Department of Transportation (DOT), in failing to
maintain the roadway. Consequently, plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover
$127.12, the cost of a replacement tire and associated repair expenses. The filing fee
was paid.
{¶ 3} Defendant denies liability in this matter based on the contention that no
DOT personnel had any knowledge of the pothole prior to plaintiff’s property-damage
event. Defendant states the pothole was located at milepost 9.50 on I-75 in Hamilton
County. Defendant noted that DOT records show one report of a pothole was received
for “I-75 at the same location as plaintiff’s but it was (received) two months before
plaintiff’s incident and the pothole was repaired the same day.” Defendant denies
receiving any other reports of the damage-causing pothole prior to the time which
plaintiff encountered it.
{¶ 4} Furthermore, defendant asserts plaintiff has not produced evidence to
show DOT negligently maintained the roadway. Defendant explains that the DOT
Hamilton County Manager “inspects all state roadways within the county at least two
times a month.” Apparently no potholes were discovered at milepost 9.50 on I-75 in the
vicinity of plaintiff’s incident the last time this roadway was inspected prior to February
27, 2011. Defendant stated that “[a] review of the six-month maintenance history
[record submitted] also reveals that general maintenance and inspection is conducted to
ensure a properly maintained roadway.
{¶ 5} Plaintiff did not file a response.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
{¶ 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} 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.
{¶ 8} To prove a breach of duty by defendant to maintain the highways plaintiff
must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that DOT 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. No evidence has shown that defendant had actual notice of the
damage-causing pothole.
{¶ 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
defective condition (pothole) developed. Spires v. Ohio Highway Department (1988), 61
Ohio Misc. 2d 262, 577 N.E. 2d 458. 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. There is insufficient evidence to show defendant had
constructive notice of the pothole.
{¶ 10} 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.
{¶ 11} Plaintiff has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
defendant failed to discharge a duty owed to him or that his property damage was
proximately caused by defendant’s negligence. Plaintiff failed to show that the damage-
causing pothole was connected to any conduct under the control of defendant 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
DAVID TAYLOR, Case No. 2011-03839-AD
Plaintiff,
v. Acting Clerk Daniel R. Borchert
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
DISTRICT 8,
Defendant. ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION
{¶ 12} 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:
David Taylor Jerry Wray, Director
1209 Terry Court Department of Transportation
Cincinnati, Ohio 45215 1980 West Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43223
6/17
Filed 7/19/11
Sent to S.C. reporter 10/27/11