Ross v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. , 2011 Ohio 5531 ( 2011 )

[Cite as Ross v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2011-Ohio-5531.]
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
PETER ROSS, Case No. 2011-03588-AD
Plaintiff,
v. Acting Clerk Daniel R. Borchert
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
Defendant. MEMORANDUM DECISION
{¶ 1} Plaintiff, Peter Ross, filed this action against defendant, Department of
Transportation (ODOT), contending his 2010 Honda Insight was damaged as a
proximate result of negligence on the part of ODOT personnel in maintaining a
hazardous condition on I-271 in Summit County. In his complaint, plaintiff provided a
narrative description of his damage event recording he was traveling north on I-271,
“when we hit a large pothole that was too big to avoid. The pothole caused our left-front
tire to blow out and shred.” Plaintiff recalled the particular damage incident occurred on
March 5, 2011, at approximately 10:00 a.m. Plaintiff requested damages in the amount
of $169.13, the total cost of a replacement tire 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 March 5, 2011 described occurrence. Defendant located the pothole “near
state milepost 28.25 or county milepost 6.26 on I-271 in Cuyahoga County.” 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 5, 2011. Defendant suggested, “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} Furthermore, defendant contended plaintiff did not offer any evidence to
prove the roadway was negligently maintained. Defendant related the ODOT
“Cuyahoga 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 on I-271 the last time that
section of roadway was inspected prior to March 5, 2011. Defendant’s maintenance
records show “no pothole patching operations were conducted in the northbound
direction” in the vicinity of plaintiff’s incident in the six months preceding March 5, 2011.
{¶ 4} Plaintiff did not file a response.
{¶ 5} For plaintiff to prevail on a claim of negligence, he must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that defendant owed him a duty, that it breached that
duty, and that the breach proximately caused his 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.
{¶ 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 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 I-271 prior to the morning of March 5, 2011.
{¶ 8} 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.
{¶ 9} 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.
{¶ 10} 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.
{¶ 11} 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 his 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
PETER ROSS, Case No. 2011-03588-AD
Plaintiff,
v. Acting Clerk Daniel R. Borchert
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
Defendant. 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:
Peter Ross Jerry Wray, Director
300 W. Spring Street Department of Transportation
Unit 1302 1980 West Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215 Columbus, Ohio 43223
6/17
Filed 7/19/11
Sent to S.C. reporter 10/27/11