[Cite as Holliday v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2003-Ohio-6435.]
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO
LYNN M. HOLLIDAY
:
Plaintiff
:
v.
:
CASE NO. 2003-09131-AD
:
ENTRY OF DISMISSAL
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, DISTRICT 5
:
Defendant
:::::::::::::::::
{¶1}
THE COURT FINDS THAT:
{¶2}
1)
On August 20, 2003, plaintiff, Lynn M. Holliday, filed a complaint
against defendant, Department of Transportation. Plaintiff alleges on August 2, 2003, her
car was damaged when she struck a pavement cutout with her vehicle. The cutout was
approximately 18" wide and 24" long with an unknown depth. The cutout was located on
St. Rt. 256 at the beginning of the entrance ramp of I70 East. Plaintiff asserts she
sustained damages in the amount of $158.95. Plaintiff submitted the filing fee with the
complaint;
{¶3}
2)
On September 12, 2003, defendant filed a motion to dismiss;
{¶4}
3)
In support of the motion to dismiss, defendant stated in pertinent part:
{¶5}
“Defendant has performed an investigation of this site and Licking County
manager, Jim Valentine, visited the location of the 18" x 24" square that was cut out of the
pavement on SR 256 adjacent to the entrance of the eastbound ramp to Interstate 70 and
this portion of SR 256 falls under the maintenance jurisdiction of the City of Pickerington . .
. As such, this section of roadway is not within the maintenance jurisdiction of the
Case No. 2003-09131-AD
-2-
ENTRY
defendant.”;
{¶6}
4)
On October 23, 2003, plaintiff filed a response to defendant’s motion
to dismiss. Plaintiff asserts the cut out was located on the entrance ramp not near the
entrance ramp. However, plaintiff has offered no evidence which disputes defendant’s
position. Plaintiff has the burden of proof to prove her claim.
{¶7}
THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT:
{¶8}
1)
{¶9}
“Except in the case of maintaining, repairing, erecting traffic signs on, or
R.C. 5501.31 in pertinent part states:
pavement marking of state highways within villages, which is mandatory as required by
section 5521.01 of the Revised Code, and except as provided in section 5501.49 of the
Revised Code, no duty of constructing, reconstructing, widening, resurfacing, maintaining,
or repairing state highways within municipal corporations, or the bridges and culverts
thereon, shall attach to or rest upon the director . . .”;
{¶10} 2)
The roadway where plaintiff’s incident occurred was not within the
maintenance responsibility of defendant.
{¶11} IT IS ORDERED THAT:
{¶12} Upon review, defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s case is
DISMISSED. The court shall absorb the court costs of this case. 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:
Lynn M. Holliday
406 Compton Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45215
Plaintiff, Pro se
Case No. 2003-09131-AD
Thomas P. Pannett, P.E.
Assistant Legal Counsel
Department of Transportation
1980 West Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43223
DRB/laa
10/17
Filed 10/30/03
Sent to S.C. reporter 12/2/03
-3-
ENTRY
For Defendant
