Martin v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Martin v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2003-Ohio-6425.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO LAWRENCE F. MARTIN : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2003-06301-AD : MEMORANDUM DECISION OHIO DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION Defendant : ::::::::::::::::: FINDINGS OF FACT {¶1} 1) On April 29, 2003, plaintiff, Lawrence Martin, was traveling on U.S. Route 27 at milepost 10.67 in Hamilton County, when his automobile struck a pothole in the traveled portion of the roadway. The pothole allegedly caused alternator damage to plaintiff s vehicle. {¶2} 2) Plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $280.48, the cost for automotive repair. Plaintiff asserted he 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. {¶4} 4) Plaintiff has not presented any evidence to indicate the length of time the pothole was on the roadway prior to his property-damage occurrence. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW {¶5} 1) Defendant has the duty to keeps the roads in a safe, drivable condition. Amica Mutual v. Dept. of Transportation (1982), 81-02289-AD. {¶6} 2) Defendant must exercise due diligence in the maintenance and repair of highways. Hennessey v. State of Ohio Highway Department (1985), 85-02071-AD. {¶7} 3) 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} 4) There is no evidence defendant had actual notice of he 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: Lawrence F. Martin 3721 Poole Road Plaintiff, Pro se Cincinnati, Ohio 45251 Gordon Proctor, Director Department of Transportation 1980 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43223 RDK/laa 10/22 Filed 10/30/03 Sent to S.C. reporter 12/2/03 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.
