Combs v. Dept. of Transp.

[Cite as Combs v. Dept. of Transp., 2010-Ohio-5473.]
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
KARLA COMBS
Plaintiff
v.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Defendant
Case No. 2010-05650-AD
Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert
MEMORANDUM DECISION
{¶ 1} Plaintiff, Karla Combs, filed this action against defendant, Department of
Transportation (ODOT), contending she suffered property damage as a proximate
cause of negligence on the part of ODOT personnel in maintaining a hazardous
condition on Interstate 75 in Montgomery County. Plaintiff recalled she was traveling
south on Interstate 75 on February 24, 2010 at approximately 12:00 a.m. when her
automobile struck a pothole causing tire and rim damage to the vehicle. In her
complaint, plaintiff requested damages in the amount of $474.85, the total cost of
replacement parts and related repair expenses she incurred resulting from the February
24, 2010 described incident. The filing fee was paid.
{¶ 2} Defendant denied liability in this matter based on the contention that no
ODOT personnel had any knowledge of the particular damage-causing pothole prior to
plaintiff’s February 24, 2010 described occurrence. Defendant located the particular
pothole “at county milepost 12.26 or state milemarker 53.16 on I-75 in Montgomery
County” and advised that “ODOT did not receive any reports of the pothole or have
knowledge of the pothole prior to the (February 24, 2010) incident.” According to ODOT
records, no pothole complaints were received in the vicinity of plaintiff’s incident.
{¶ 3} Defendant denied ODOT negligently maintained Interstate 75 in Hamilton
County. Defendant noted the ODOT “Montgomery County Manager inspects all state
roadways within the county at least two times a month.” Apparently no potholes were
discovered at county milepost 12.26 on Interstate 75 the last time that section of
roadway was inspected prior to February 24, 2010. The claim file is devoid of any copy
of ODOT Hamilton County inspection records. Defendant asserted the particular
location of Interstate 75 is an actively inspected location and suggested the pothole
plaintiff’s car struck “existed for only a short time before the incident.”
{¶ 4} Plaintiff filed a response insisting her car was damaged as a proximate
cause of negligence on the part of ODOT in maintaining the roadway. Plaintiff did not
offer any evidence to establish the length of time the pothole was present on the
roadway prior to 12:00 a.m. on February 24, 2010.
{¶ 5} 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. Plaintiff
has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she suffered a loss
and that this loss was proximately caused by defendant’s negligence. Barnum v. Ohio
State University (1977), 76-0368-AD. 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 that defendant had actual notice of the
pothole. Therefore, for the court to find liability on a notice theory, evidence of
constructive notice of the pothole must be presented.
{¶ 8} “[C]onstructive notice is that which the law regards as sufficient to give
notice and is regarded as a substitute for actual notice or knowledge.” In re Estate of
Fahle (1950), 90 Ohio App. 195, 197-198, 48 O.O. 231, 105 N.E. 2d 429. “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. In order for there to be constructive notice,
plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, 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 .
{¶ 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 pothole
appeared on the roadway. Spires v. Ohio Highway Department (1988), 61 Ohio Misc.
2d 262, 577 N.E. 2d 458. No evidence was presented to establish the length of time
that the particular pothole was present. 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. Plaintiff has failed to prove that defendant had
constructive notice of the pothole. 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. Therefore, defendant is not liable for any damage that plaintiff
may have suffered from the roadway defect.
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
KARLA COMBS
Plaintiff
v.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Defendant
Case No. 2010-05650-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:
Karla Combs Jolene M. Molitoris, Director
1015 Taywood Department of Transportation
Englewood, Ohio 45322 1980 West Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43223
RDK/laa
7/2
Filed 7/20/10
Sent to S.C. reporter 11/5/10