[Cite as Jump v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., Dist. 8, 2003-Ohio-6029.]
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO
LEAH M. JUMP
:
Plaintiff
:
v.
:
CASE NO. 2003-07073-AD
:
MEMORANDUM DECISION
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, DISTRICT 8
:
Defendant
:::::::::::::::::
FINDINGS OF FACT
{¶1}
1)
On June 5, 2003, plaintiff, Leah M. Jump, was traveling west on
Interstate 74 near the Interstate 275 merge in Hamilton County when her automobile struck
a pothole causing damage to the vehicle.
{¶2}
2)
Plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $583.00, the cost of
automotive repair which plaintiff contends he incurred as a result of negligence on the part
of defendant, Department of Transportation in maintaining the roadway. Plaintiff submitted
the filing fee.
{¶3}
3)
Defendant has denied liability based on the fact it had no knowledge of
the pothole prior to plaintiff’s property damage occurrence.
{¶4}
4)
Despite filing a response, plaintiff has not submitted any evidence to
indicate the length of time the pothole existed prior to the incident forming the basis of this
claim.
{¶5}
5)
Defendant has asserted maintenance records show four pothole
patching operations were needed in the general vicinity of plaintiff’s incident during the
four-month period preceding the June 5, 2003 property damage event.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
{¶6}
1)
Defendant has the duty to keep roads in a safe, drivable condition.
Amica Mutual v. Dept. of Transportation (1982), 81-02289-AD.
{¶7}
2)
In order to recover on a claim of this type, plaintiff must prove either: 1)
defendant had 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}
3)
There is no evidence defendant had actual notice of the damage-
causing pothole.
{¶9}
4)
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} 5)
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.
{¶11} 6)
In order for there to be constructive notice, plaintiff must show
sufficient time has elapsed after dangerous condition (pothole) appears, so that under the
circumstances, defendant should have acquired knowledge of its existence. Guiher v.
Jackson (1978), 78-0126-AD.
{¶12} 7)
No evidence has shown defendant had constructive notice of the
pothole.
{¶13} 8)
Furthermore, plaintiff has failed to show defendant negligently
maintained the roadway.
{¶14} 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:
Leah M. Jump
29076 Chappelow Hill Road
W. Harrison, Indiana 47040
Gordon Proctor, Director
Department of Transportation
1980 West Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43223
RDK/laa
10/7
Filed 10/17/03
Sent to S.C. reporter 11/10/03
Plaintiff, Pro se
For Defendant
