Hill v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. , 2011 Ohio 5119 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as Hill v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 
    2011-Ohio-5119
    .]
    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
    FRED A. HILL
    Plaintiff
    v.
    OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
    Defendant
    Case No. 2011-03219-AD
    Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    {¶1}     Plaintiff, Fred Hill, filed this action against defendant, Department of
    Transportation (ODOT), contending his 2008 Jaguar was damaged as a proximate
    result of negligence on the part of ODOT in maintaining a hazardous condition on
    Interstate 75 South in Hamilton County. Specifically, plaintiff related his left front tire
    was damaged as a result of striking a pothole located in the roadway “in the high speed
    lane” of I-75 South at mile marker 5/1. Plaintiff filed this complaint requesting damage
    recovery in the amount of $511.19, the total cost of a replacement tire and associated
    repair expenses. 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 4, 2011 described occurrence. Defendant confirmed the location of
    plaintiff’s pothole on I-75 in Hamilton County and defendant advised that “ODOT did not
    receive any reports of the pothole or have knowledge of the pothole prior to the
    incident.”
    Case No. 2006-03532-AD                    -2-             MEMORANDUM DECISION
    {¶3}   Defendant denied ODOT negligently maintained Interstate 75 in Hamilton
    County.    Defendant noted the ODOT “Hamilton County Manager inspects all state
    roadways within the county at least two times a month.”       Defendant asserted that
    general maintenance and inspection is conducted to ensure a properly maintained
    roadway.
    {¶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
    . Plaintiff
    has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he 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. 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
    ;
    Case No. 2006-03532-AD                  -3-               MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Case No. 2006-03532-AD                  -3-               MEMORANDUM DECISION
    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
    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.
    {¶7}    “[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, 
    47 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.
    Case No. 2006-03532-AD                   -4-               MEMORANDUM DECISION
    (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; Gelarden v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., Dist. 4, Ct. of Cl.
    No. 2007-02521-AD, 
    2007-Ohio-3047
    .
    {¶8}   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.
    Case No. 2006-03532-AD            -5-   MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Case No. 2006-03532-AD            -5-   MEMORANDUM DECISION
    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
    FRED A. HILL
    Plaintiff
    v.
    OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
    Defendant
    Case No. 2011-03219-AD
    Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert
    Case No. 2006-03532-AD                     -6-               MEMORANDUM DECISION
    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:
    Fred A. Hill                                      Jerry Wray, Director
    6550 Stewart Road                                 Department of Transportation
    Cincinnati, Ohio 45236-4104                       1980 West Broad Street
    Columbus, Ohio 43223
    SJM/laa
    6/9
    Filed 6/27/11
    Sent to S.C. reporter 10/4/11
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2011-03219-AD

Citation Numbers: 2011 Ohio 5119

Judges: Borchert

Filed Date: 6/27/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014