Toney v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. , 2015 Ohio 5356 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as Toney v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 
    2015-Ohio-5356
    .]
    JASON TONEY                                            Case No. 2015-00398-AD
    Plaintiff                                       Clerk Mark H. Reed
    v.
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    OHIO DEPARTMENT OF
    TRANSPORTATION
    Defendant
    {¶1} Jason Toney (hereinafter “plaintiff”) filed this claim on April 23, 2015 to
    recover damages which occurred when his 2015 Kia Optima struck a large pothole on
    March 3, 2015 while he was traveling on I-71 southbound in Fayette 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 $167.19. 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 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 ODOT.
    {¶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. 2015-00398-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 7, 2015, ODOT indicated that the
    location of the incident was on IR 71, between mile markers 70.0 and 76.0 in Fayette
    County. This section of the roadway on IR 71 has an average daily traffic count of
    between 27,980 and 37,950 vehicles.         Despite this volume of traffic, ODOT had
    received no notice of a pothole on this roadway prior to plaintiff’s incident. Thus, the
    Court is unable to find that ODOT knew about the pothole. Within the past six months,
    ODOT conducted one hundred seven (107) maintenance operations on IR 71 in Fayette
    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 ODOT 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 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.
    Case No. 2015-00398-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.
    JASON TONEY                                Case No. 2015-00398-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:
    Jason Toney                                 Jerry Wray, Director
    611 Blanche Avenue                          Ohio Department Of Transportation
    Cincinnati, Ohio 45215                      1980 West Broad Street
    Mail Stop 1500
    Columbus, Ohio 43223
    Case No. 2015-00398-AD           -4-   MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Filed 9/23/15
    Sent to S.C. Reporter 12/21/15
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2015-00398-AD

Citation Numbers: 2015 Ohio 5356

Judges: Reed

Filed Date: 9/23/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/22/2015