Herron v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. , 2011 Ohio 6998 ( 2011 )

[Cite as Herron v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2011-Ohio-6998.]
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
ASHLEY HERRON
Plaintiff
v.
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Defendant
Case No. 2011-08687-AD
Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert
MEMORANDUM DECISION
{¶1} Plaintiff, Ashley Herron, filed this action against defendant, Department of
Transportation (ODOT), contending that her vehicle was damaged on April 5, 2011, at
approximately 10:00 a.m as a proximate result of negligence on the part of ODOT in
maintaining a hazardous condition on SR 42. Specifically, plaintiff asserted that her
truck sustained substantial damage when she hit a large pothole in the roadway. In her
complaint, plaintiff requested damage recovery of $703.11, which represents the cost of
replacement parts and associated repair expenses. The $25.00 filing fee was paid.
{¶2} Defendant denied liability based on the contention that no ODOT
personnel had any knowledge of the particular damage-causing pothole prior to
plaintiff’s incident. Defendant notes that plaintiff’s incident occurred “at milemarker 15.0
on US 42 in Richland County.” Defendant contended that plaintiff did not produce any
evidence to establish the length of time the pothole at milepost 15.0 on US 42 existed
prior to her April 5, 2011 damage occurrence.
{¶3} Furthermore, defendant contended that plaintiff failed to offer evidence to
prove that ODOT negligently maintained the roadway. Defendant asserted that plaintiff
has not shown her property damage was attributable to conduct on the part of ODOT
personnel. Defendant explained that the ODOT “Richland County Manager conducts
roadway inspections on all state roadways within the county on a routine basis, at least
one to two times a month.” Apparently, no potholes were discovered at milepost 15.0
on US 42 the last time that particular section of roadway was inspected prior to April 5,
2011. Defendant submitted a copy of the “Maintenance History” for US 42 in Richland
County covering the dates from October 1, 2010, to April 5, 2011. This record shows
that ODOT crews patched potholes in the vicinity of plaintiff’s incident twice in January,
February, and March 2011. Plaintiff did not file a response.
{¶4} For plaintiff to prevail on a claim of negligence, she must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that defendant owed her a duty, that it breached that
duty, and that the breach proximately caused her 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 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.
{¶5} 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.
{¶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.
(Feb. 4, 1993), Franklin App. No. 92AP-1183. In order for there to be a finding of
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 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.
{¶9} Generally, in order to recover in a suit involving damage proximately
caused by roadway conditions including potholes, plaintiff must prove that either: 1)
defendant had actual or constructive notice of the pothole and failed to respond in a
reasonable time or responded in a negligent manner, or 2) that defendant, in a general
sense, maintains its highways negligently. Denis v. Department of Transportation
(1976), 75-0287-AD.
{¶10} In this case, defendant admitted patching potholes in the vicinity of
milepost 15.0 on US 42 on March 7 and March 24, 2011. A patch that deteriorates in
less than ten days is prima facie evidence of negligent maintenance. See Matala v.
Ohio Department of Transportation, 2003-01270-AD, 2003-Ohio-2618;Schrock v. Ohio
Dept. of Transp., Ct. of Cl. No. 2005-02460-AD, 2005-Ohio-2479. However, plaintiff has
failed to prove that the pothole she struck had been previously patched or that the
patching material was subject to rapid deterioration. 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.
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
ASHLEY HERRON
Plaintiff
v.
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Defendant
Case No. 2011-08687-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 defendant. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff.
________________________________
DANIEL R. BORCHERT
Deputy Clerk
Entry cc:
Ashley Herron Jerry Wray, Director
1555 St. Rt. 511 Department of Transportation
Apt. 1 1980 West Broad Street
Ashland, Ohio 44805 Columbus, Ohio 43223
10/3
Filed 10/6/11
Sent to S.C. reporter 2/16/12