Ullmann v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., Dist. 10
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Ullmann v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., Dist. 10, 2004-Ohio3271.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO TERESA KAY ULLMANN : Plaintiff : v. : : OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DISTRICT 10 CASE NO. 2004-02610-AD MEMORANDUM DECISION : Defendant ::::::::::::::::: FINDINGS OF FACT {¶1} 1) Plaintiff, Teresa Kay Ullman, stated she was, driving on State Route 339 South .5 mile out of Waterford Oh. Avoided pothole on right side of may 2002 Ford Taurus and hit road debris with front tire on driver side hitting driver side door. Plaintiff asserted the debris caused body damage to the vehicle. According to plaintiff the incident occurred on February 12, 2004. {¶2} 2) Plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $423.55, the cost for automotive repair. Plaintiff asserted she sustained these damages as a result of negligence on the part of defendant, roadway. Department of Transportation, in maintaining the Plaintiff paid the filing fee. {¶3} 3) Defendant denied liability based on the fact it had no knowledge the debris condition and roadway defect were on the roadway. {¶4} 4) Plaintiff has not presented any evidence to indicate the length of time the debris condition was on the roadway prior to her property-damage occurrence. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW {¶5} 1) Defendant has the duty to keep the roads in a safe, drivable condition. Amica Mutual v. Dept. of Transportation (1982), 81-02289- AD. {¶6} 2) Defendant must exercise maintenance and repair of highways. due diligence in the 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 (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. {¶8} 4) There is no evidence defendant had actual notice of the debris condition. {¶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 (debris) 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 (debris) 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 debris condition. {¶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: Teresa Kay Ullmann 1042 Bell Road Vincent, Ohio 45784 Plaintiff, Pro se Gordon Proctor, Director Department of Transportation 1980 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43223 For Defendant RDK/laa 5/5 Filed 5/25/04 Sent to S.C. reporter 6/22/04
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.
