Williams v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Williams v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2005-Ohio-4860.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO JOE WILLIAMS, et al. : Plaintiffs : v. : CASE NO. 2005-05663-AD : MEMORANDUM DECISION OHIO DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : FINDINGS OF FACT {¶ 1} 1) On January 3, 2005, at approximately 9:00 p.m., plaintiff, Joe Williams, was traveling west on US Route 250 at milepost 18.75 in Wayne County, when his automobile struck a chunk of asphalt in the roadway. The asphalt debris caused substantial damage to the undercarriage of the vehicle plaintiff was driving. Photographs of the particular highway area were submitted and those photographs depict surface deterioration with loose paving material present on the roadway. {¶ 2} 2) Plaintiffs filed this complaint seeking to recover $200.00,1 their automotive repair costs incurred after insurance reimbursement. Plaintiffs implied the property damage to their car was proximately caused by negligence on the part of defendant, Department of Transportation ( DOT ), in maintaining US Route 250. The filing fee was paid. {¶ 3} 3) Defendant denied any liability based on the assertion it had no knowledge of any roadway defect or debris condition on US 1 See R.C. 2743.02(D). Route 250 at milepost 18.75 in Wayne County prior to plaintiffs property damage occurrence. Defendant related no calls or complaints were received at DOT s Wayne County Garage regarding a deteriorating roadway surface condition on US Route 250 before January 3, 2005. Defendant suggested this condition occurred rapidly due to the weather changes. personnel conducted routine roadway Defendant explained DOT inspections and did not discover any deteriorated roadway surface at milepost 18.75 on US Route 250 in Wayne County prior to January 3, 2005. {¶ 4} 4) Despite filing a response, plaintiffs did not present any evidence to establish the length of time the particular roadway surface had been deteriorated prior to the incident forming the basis of this claim. Plaintiffs stated the road was clear on January 1, 2005, two days before their property damage event. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW {¶ 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. However, defendant is not an insurer of the safety of its highways. See Kniskern v. Township of Somerford (1996), 112 Ohio App. 3d 189; Rhodus v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. (1990), 67 Ohio App. 3d 723. {¶ 6} In proximately plaintiffs order caused must to by prove recover roadway either: in any suit conditions 1) involving including defendant had injury debris, actual or constructive notice of the debris 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. {¶ 7} Defendant is only liable for roadway conditions of which it has notice, but fails to reasonably correct. of Transp. (1986), 31 Ohio Misc. 2d 1. Bussard v. Dept. {¶ 8} Plaintiffs have not produced any evidence to indicate the length of time the debris condition was present on the roadway prior to the incident forming the basis of this claim. No evidence has been submitted to show defendant had actual notice of the debris. Additionally, 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 debris appeared on the roadway. 262. Spires v. Highway Department (1988), 61 Ohio Misc. 2d There is no indication defendant had constructive notice of the debris. {¶ 9} Finally, plaintiffs have not produced any evidence to infer defendant, negligently condition. or in that a general sense, defendant s maintains acts caused its the highways defective Herlihy v. Ohio Department of Transportation (1999), 99-07011-AD. Therefore, defendant is not liable for any damage plaintiffs may have suffered from the roadway debris. IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO JOE WILLIAMS, et al. : Plaintiffs : v. : CASE NO. 2005-05663-AD : ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION OHIO DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 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. are assessed against plaintiffs. Court costs 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: Joe Williams Patricia Williams 333 East 9th Street Ashland, Ohio 44805 Gordon Proctor, Director Department of Transportation 1980 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43223 DRB/RDK/laa 7/28 Filed 8/30/05 Sent to S.C. reporter 9/14/05 Plaintiffs Pro se For Defendant
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.
