Lazur v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. , 2011 Ohio 7001 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as Lazur v. Dept. of Transp., 
    2011-Ohio-7001
    .]
    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
    MARY JO LAZUR
    Plaintiff
    v.
    OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
    Defendant
    Case No. 2011-09004-AD
    Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    FINDINGS OF FACT
    {¶1}     Plaintiff, Mary Jo Lazur, filed this action against defendant, Department of
    Transportation (ODOT), contending that her car was damaged as a proximate result of
    negligence on the part of ODOT in maintaining the roadway free of hazards in a
    construction area on Interstate 75 in Lucas County. Plaintiff requested damages in the
    amount of $167.60, the cost to replace the damaged tire, and an unspecified amount for
    “1 ½ hr. loss of work.”1 The $25.00 filing fee was paid.
    {¶2}     ODOT filed an investigation report requesting that plaintiff’s claim be
    dismissed, advising that the claim was paid and settled by ODOT contractor, E.S.
    Wagner Company (Wagner). Defendant provided a copy of check number 118921
    issued to plaintiff on August 12, 2011, by Wagner in the amount of $167.60.
    Consequently, defendant pointed out plaintiff’s entire damage claim was covered by a
    collateral source and is subject to the provisions of R.C. 2743.02(D).2 ODOT stated,
    1
    Plaintiff failed to present any evidence in support of her claim for lost time from work.
    2
    R.C. 2743.02(D)
    “(D) Recoveries against the state shall be reduced by the aggregate of insurance proceeds,
    disability award, or other collateral recovery received by the claimant. This division does not apply to civil
    actions in the court of claims against a state university or college under the circumstances described in
    “[i]n sum, defendant respectfully requests that the present action be dismissed because
    plaintiff has been fully compensated by a collateral source.” Defendant did not address
    reimbursement of the filing fee paid by plaintiff.
    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
    {¶3}    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.
    {¶4}    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
    .
    {¶5}    Plaintiff has the burden of proof to show her property damage was the
    direct result of failure of defendant’s agents to exercise ordinary care in maintaining the
    roadway. In the instant claim, sufficient evidence has been submitted to show plaintiff’s
    vehicle was damaged as a result of negligent acts or omissions on the part of
    defendant’s agents. However, any damage claim plaintiff is entitled to receive is subject
    to the collateral source recovery provision of R.C. 2743.02(D). In addition, plaintiff failed
    to supply any supporting documentation to establish her claim for lost wages. Therefore,
    defendant is not liable for any damages claimed but is liable for the $25.00 filing fee
    which may be reimbursed as compensable costs. See Bailey v. Ohio Department of
    Rehabilitation and Correction (1990), 
    62 Ohio Misc. 2d 19
    , 
    587 N.E. 2d 990
    .
    section 3345.40 of the Revised Code. The collateral benefits provisions of division (B)(2) of that section
    apply under those circumstances.”
    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
    MARY JO LAZUR
    Plaintiff
    v.
    OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
    Defendant
    Case No. 2011-09004-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 plaintiff in the amount of $25.00, which represents the filing fee. Court costs are
    assessed against defendant.
    DANIEL R. BORCHERT
    Deputy Clerk
    Entry cc:
    Mary Jo Lazur                              Jerry Wray, Director
    3239 Dogwood Drive                         Department of Transportation
    Oregon, Ohio 43616                         1980 West Broad Street
    Columbus, Ohio 43223
    9/27
    Filed 10/4/11
    Sent to S.C. reporter 2/16/12
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2011-09004-AD

Citation Numbers: 2011 Ohio 7001

Judges: Borchert

Filed Date: 10/4/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014