Hill v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Hill v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2003-Ohio-4294.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO MORNA HILL : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2003-04996-AD : MEMORANDUM DECISION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : FINDINGS OF FACT {¶1} 1) On March 25, 2003, plaintiff, Morna Hill, was traveling south on State Route 170 at milepost 6.1 in Columbiana County, when her automobile struck a pothole in the traveled portion of the roadway. The pothole caused damage to plaintiff s vehicle. {¶2} 2) Plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $111.76 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 prior to plaintiff s incident. {¶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 Department (1985), 85-02071-AD. {¶7} 3) plaintiff 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, 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. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. ________________________________ DANIEL R. BORCHERT Deputy Clerk Entry cc: Morna Hill 43543 18th St. Hts. Wellsville, Ohio 43968 Plaintiff, Pro se Gordon Proctor, Director Department of Transportation 1980 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43223 For Defendant RDK/laa 7/9 Filed 7/24/03 Sent to S.C. reporter 8/14/03
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.
