Bussell v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Bussell v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2003-Ohio-2983.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO JENNE BUSSELL : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2003-03116-AD : MEMORANDUM DECISION OHIO DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : FINDINGS OF FACT {¶1} 1) On or about December 18, 2002 plaintiff, Jenne Bussell was traveling on the Beechmont Road exit on Interstate 275 South in Clermont County, when her automobile struck a pothole at milepost 12.89 in the traveled portion of the roadway. The pothole caused tire, rim, and hubcap damage to plaintiff s vehicle. {¶2} 2) Plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $350.00, the approximate cost for automotive repair. Plaintiff asserted she sustained these damages as a result of negligence on the part of defendant, Department of Transportation, in maintaining the roadway. Plaintiff has also filed a claim for filing fee reimbursement. {¶3} 3) Defendant has denied liability based on the fact it had no knowledge the pothole existed. {¶4} 4) Plaintiff has not presented any evidence to indicate the length of time the pothole was on the roadway prior to her property-damage occurrence. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW {¶5} 1) Defendant has the duty to keep the roads in a safe, drivable condition. Amica Mutual v. Dept. of Transportation (1982), 81-02289-AD. {¶6} 2) Defendant must exercise maintenance and repair of highways. due diligence in the Hennessey v. State of Ohio Highway Dept. (1985), 85-02071-AD. {¶7} plaintiff 3) In must order prove to recover either: on 1) a claim defendant of had this type, actual or constructive notice of the defect (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. {¶8} 4) There is no evidence defendant had actual notice of the pothole. {¶9} 5) The trier of fact is precluded from making an inference of defendant s constructive notice, unless evidence is presented in respect to the time the defective condition (pothole) developed. Spires v. Highway Department (1988), 61 Ohio Misc. 2d 262. {¶10} 6) In order for there to be constructive notice, plaintiff must show sufficient time has elapsed after the dangerous condition (pothole) appears, so that under the circumstances, defendant should have acquired knowledge of its existence. Guiher v. Jackson (1978), 78-0126-AD. {¶11} 7) No evidence has shown defendant had constructive notice of the damage-causing pothole. {¶12} 8) Furthermore, plaintiff has failed to show defendant negligently maintained the roadway. {¶13} Having considered all the evidence in the claim file and adopting the memorandum decision concurrently herewith; {¶14} IT IS ORDERED THAT: {¶15} 1) Plaintiff s claim is DENIED and judgment is rendered in favor of defendant; {¶16} 2) The court shall absorb the court costs of this case in excess of the filing fee. ________________________________ DANIEL R. BORCHERT Deputy Clerk Entry cc: Jenne Bussell 1177 Witt Rd. Unit #101 Cincinnati, Ohio 45255 Plaintiff, Pro se Gordon Proctor, Director Ohio Department of Transportation 1980 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43223 For Defendant RDK/tad 5/6 Filed 5/22/03 Sent to S.C. reporter 6/11/03
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
