Davis v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. , 2016 Ohio 1109 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as Davis v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2016-Ohio-1109.]
    AMY DAVIS                                              Case No. 2015-00895-AD
    Plaintiff                                       Clerk Mark H. Reed
    v.
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    OHIO DEPARTMENT OF
    TRANSPORTATION
    Defendant
    {¶1} Plaintiff Amy Davis (hereinafter “plaintiff”) filed this claim on October 19,
    2015 to recover damages which occurred on October 12, 2015 when her vehicle was
    struck by an orange construction cone while traveling on I-70 eastbound at Hague
    Avenue in Franklin County, Ohio. This road is a public road maintained by the Ohio
    Department of Transportation (hereinafter “ODOT”).                       Plaintiff’s vehicle sustained
    damages in the amount of $1,543.49.                         Plaintiff maintains a collision insurance
    deductible of $500.00.
    {¶2} In order to recover on a claim for roadway damages against ODOT, Ohio
    law requires that a motorist/plaintiff prove all of the following:
    {¶3} That the plaintiff’s motor vehicle received damages as a result of coming
    into contact with a dangerous condition on a road maintained by ODOT.
    {¶4} That ODOT knew or should have known about the dangerous road
    condition.
    {¶5} That ODOT, armed with this knowledge, failed to repair or remedy the
    dangerous condition in a reasonable time.
    {¶6} In this claim, the Court finds that the plaintiff did prove that her vehicle
    received damages and that those damages occurred as a result of the plaintiff’s vehicle
    coming into contact with a dangerous condition on a road maintained by ODOT.
    Case No. 2015-00895-AD                     -2-              MEMORANDUM DECISION
    {¶7} The next element that a plaintiff must prove to succeed on a claim such as
    this is to show that ODOT knew or should have known about this dangerous condition.
    Based on the evidence presented, the Court is unable to find that ODOT had actual
    knowledge of the dangerous condition. Likewise, the Court is unable to find that ODOT
    should have known about this dangerous condition and thus would have had
    constructive notice about the highway danger.        Constructive notice is defined as
    “(n)otice arising from the presumption of law from the existence of facts and
    circumstances that a party has a duty to take notice of...Notice presumed by law to have
    been acquired by a person and thus imputed to that person.” (Black’s Law Dictionary at
    1090 8th Ed. 2004.)
    {¶8} In order for there to be constructive notice, a plaintiff must prove that
    sufficient time has passed after the dangerous condition first appears, so that under the
    circumstances ODOT should have gained knowledge of its existence. This, the plaintiff
    has been unable to do.
    {¶9} In the Investigation Report filed December 23, 2015, ODOT stated that the
    location of the incident was on IR 70 in Franklin County at mile marker 95.00. This
    section of the roadway has an average daily traffic count of between 118,960 and
    132,160 vehicles. Despite this volume of traffic, ODOT had received no notice of any
    construction cones traveling onto this section of the road thus, the Court is unable to
    find that ODOT knew about the road debris. Within the past six months, ODOT had
    also conducted two hundred seven (207) maintenance operations on IR 70 in Franklin
    County without discovering any loose debris.      If any cones had traveled onto this
    section of the roadway, it is probable that it would likely have been discovered by
    ODOT’s work crews. Thus, the Court cannot find that ODOT should have known about
    the cones in the roadway. It is thus likely that the orange construction cone had only
    recently traveled into the roadway and that Ohio Department of Transportation had not
    Case No. 2015-00895-AD                       -3-             MEMORANDUM DECISION
    been notified regarding this hazard. How the cone traveled into the roadway is an open
    question. However, there was no evidence that ODOT negligently placed the cone or
    was responsible by any act of commission or omission for the cone being in the path of
    plaintiff’s vehicle on October 12, 2015.
    {¶10} Under Ohio law, the burden of proof in civil claims like this one rests on the
    plaintiff. The plaintiff, to succeed on the claim, must prove that ODOT either knew or
    reasonably should have known about the road debris. Admittedly, this places a difficult
    task on a plaintiff in a road debris claim against ODOT. However, this is the law that is
    binding on this Court at the present time.
    {¶11} Finally, the law in Ohio is that ODOT is not an absolute insurer of a
    motorist’s safety on the highway. The department is only liable for damage when the
    Court finds that it was negligent. This the Court is unable to do.
    {¶12} Since the plaintiff is unable to prove that the defendant knew or should
    have known about this dangerous condition, the claim must fail.
    AMY DAVIS                                     Case No. 2015-00895-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 defendant. Court costs shall be absorbed by the Court.
    Case No. 2015-00895-AD          -4-            MEMORANDUM DECISION
    MARK H. REED
    Clerk
    Entry cc:
    Amy Davis                        Jerry Wray, Director
    4929 Elks Drive                  Ohio Department Of Transportation
    Columbus, Ohio 43214             19890 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: 2015-00895-AD

Citation Numbers: 2016 Ohio 1109

Judges: Reed

Filed Date: 2/2/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/18/2016