Hines v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Hines v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2007-Ohio-1274.] Court of Claims of Ohio The Ohio Judicial Center 65 South Front Street, Third Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 www.cco.state.oh.us VINCE EDWARD HINES Case No. 2006-06281-AD Plaintiff Clerk Miles C. Durfey v. MEMORANDUM DECISION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Defendant FINDINGS OF FACT {¶1} 1) On September 14, 2006, at approximately 7:00 p.m., plaintiff, Vince E. Hines, was traveling south on Interstate 71 near milepost 109.0 in Franklin County, when his automobile struck a pothole causing tire and rim damage to the vehicle. {¶2} 2) Plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $945.19, his total cost of automotive repair which plaintiff contends he incurred as a result of negligence on the part of defendant, Department of Transportation ( DOT ), in maintaining the roadway. The $25.00 filing fee was paid. {¶3} 3) Defendant denied liability based on the contention that no DOT personnel had any knowledge of the pothole on the roadway prior to plaintiff s September 14, 2006, property damage occurrence. Defendant asserted plaintiff failed to produce any evidence showing how long the pothole existed prior to 7:00 p.m. on September 14, 2006. {¶4} 4) Defendant denied receiving any calls or complaints regarding the particular pothole before plaintiff s incident. Defendant explained DOT employees conduct roadway inspections, at least two times a month. Apparently, no potholes were discovered during a previous roadway inspection. Defendant suggested the pothole likely, existed in that location for only a relatively short amount of time before plaintiff s incident. Defendant denied any DOT employees were negligent in regard to roadway maintenance. Case No. 2006-06281-AD -2- MEMORANDUM DECISION 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 order to prove a breach of the duty to maintain the highways, plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant had actual or constructive notice of the precise condition or defect alleged to have caused the accident. McClellan v. ODOT (1986), 34 Ohio App. 3d 247. Defendant is only liable for roadway conditions of which it has notice, but fails to reasonably correct. Bussard v. Dept. of Transp. (1986), 31 Ohio Misc. 2d 1. {¶7} Plaintiff has not produced sufficient evidence to indicate the length of time the particular pothole was present on the roadway prior to the incident forming the basis of this claim. Plaintiff has not shown defendant had actual notice of the pothole for a sufficient length of time to invoke liability. 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 pothole appeared on the roadway. Spires v. Ohio Highway Department (1988), 61 Ohio Misc. 2d 262. There is no indication defendant had constructive notice of the pothole. Plaintiff has not produced any evidence to infer defendant, in a general sense, maintains its highways negligently or that defendant s acts caused the defective condition. Herlihy v. Ohio Department of Transportation (1999), 99-07011-AD. Size of the defect (pothole) is insufficient to show notice or duration of existence. O Neil v. Ohio Department of Transportation (1988), 61 Ohio Misc. 2d 287. Therefore, defendant is not liable for any damage plaintiff may have suffered from the pothole. [Cite as Hines v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2007-Ohio-1274.] Court of Claims of Ohio The Ohio Judicial Center 65 South Front Street, Third Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 www.cco.state.oh.us VINCE EDWARD HINES Plaintiff Case No. 2006-06281-AD Clerk Miles C. Durfey v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION 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. 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. ________________________________ MILES C. DURFEY Clerk Entry cc: Vince Edward Hines 6835 Greenleaf Drive Apt. B#1 Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068 Gordon Proctor, Director Department of Transportation 1980 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43223 RDK/laa 1/10 Filed 2/6/07 Sent to S.C. reporter 3/20/07
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.
