Ferguson v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. , 2015 Ohio 5353 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as Ferguson v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 
    2015-Ohio-5353
    .]
    JOSHUA A. FERGUSON                                    Case No. 2015-00302-AD
    Plaintiff                                      Clerk Mark H. Reed
    v.
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    OHIO DEPARTMENT OF
    TRANSPORTATION
    Defendant
    {¶1} Plaintiff Joshua A. Ferguson filed this claim on April 6, 2015 to recover
    damages which occurred when his vehicle struck a pothole on March 9, 2015 while he
    was traveling on I-71 North in Hamilton County, Ohio.               This road is a public road
    maintained by the Ohio Department of Transportation.                Plaintiff’s vehicle sustained
    damages in the amount of $301.58.
    {¶2} In order to recover on a claim for roadway damages against the Ohio
    Department of Transportation, 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 the defendant.
    {¶4} That the defendant knew or should have known about the dangerous road
    condition.
    {¶5} That the defendant, 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 his 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 the defendant.
    {¶7} The next element that a plaintiff must prove to succeed on a claim such as
    this is to show that the defendant knew or should have known about this dangerous
    Case No. 2015-00302-AD                        -2-               MEMORANDUM DECISION
    condition.   Based on the evidence presented, the Court is unable to find that the
    defendant had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition. Likewise, the Court is
    unable to find that the defendant 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 the defendant should have gained knowledge of its existence. This, the
    plaintiff has been unable to do.
    {¶9} In the Investigation Report filed July 14, 2015 the defendant stated that the
    location of the incident was on IR 71, at interstate mile marker 0.22 in Hamilton County.
    This section of the roadway on IR 71 has an average daily traffic count of between
    123,690 and 150,930 vehicles.        Despite this volume of traffic, the department had
    received no notice of a pothole on this roadway prior to plaintiff’s incident. Thus, the
    Court is unable to find that the department knew about the pothole. Within the past six
    months, the department conducted three hundred forty-two (342) maintenance
    operations on IR 71 in Hamilton County where this incident occurred. If any pothole
    was present for any appreciable length of time, it is probable that it would likely have
    been discovered by the department’s work crews.            It is thus likely that the pothole
    developed only shortly before plaintiff struck it with his vehicle. Finally, the law in Ohio is
    that the department 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.
    Case No. 2015-00302-AD                    -3-               MEMORANDUM DECISION
    {¶10} Since the plaintiff is unable to prove that the defendant knew or should
    have known about this dangerous condition, the claim must fail.
    JOSHUA A. FERGUSON                         Case No. 2015-00302-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 defendant. Court costs shall be absorbed by the court.
    MARK H. REED
    Clerk
    Entry cc:
    Joshua A. Ferguson                          Jerry Wray, Director
    911 Caldwell St                             Ohio Department Of Transportation
    Piqua, Ohio 45356                           1980 West Broad Street
    Mail Stop 1500
    Columbus, Ohio 43223
    Case No. 2015-00302-AD           -4-   MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Filed 9/22/15
    Sent to S.C. Reporter 12/21/15
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2015-00302-AD

Citation Numbers: 2015 Ohio 5353

Judges: Reed

Filed Date: 9/22/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/28/2015