Houvouras v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Houvouras v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2004-Ohio-3949.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO DONNA M. HOUVOURAS : Plaintiff : v. : : OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CASE NO. 2004-03632-AD MEMORANDUM DECISION : Defendant ::::::::::::::::: FINDINGS OF FACT {¶1} 1) On February 26, 2004, plaintiff, Donna M. Houvouras, was traveling south on Interstate 675 just north of the Dorothy Lane-Indian Ripple Road overpass in Greene County, when a broken dislodged center line reflector was propelled into the path of plaintiff s vehicle. The reflector then struck plaintiff s van damaging the bumper. {¶2} 2) Plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $810.46, the cost of automotive repair which plaintiff contends she incurred as a result of negligence on the part of defendant, Department of Transportation, in failing to maintain the roadway. Plaintiff submitted the requisite filing fee. {¶3} 3) Defendant denied liability based on the fact it had no knowledge the reflector was broken plaintiff s property-damage occurrence. employees conducted inspection and detached prior to Defendant asserted its operations in the area of plaintiff s incident on many occasions prior to February 26, 2004, and did not discover any loose pavement markers. {¶4} 4) On June 8, 2004, plaintiff defendant s investigation report. filed a response to However, plaintiff has not submitted any evidence to indicate the length of time the reflector was defective and loosened prior to the incident forming the basis of this claim. 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) In order to recover on a claim of this type, plaintiff must prove either: 1) defendant had actual or constructive notice of the dislodged reflector 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} 3) There is no evidence defendant had actual notice of the loose pavement marker. {¶8} 4) 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 reflector became dislodged. Spires v. Highway Department (1988), 61 Ohio Misc. 2d 262. {¶9} 5) In order for there to be constructive notice, plaintiff must show sufficient time has elapsed after the reflector became loosened, so that under the circumstances, defendant should have acquired knowledge of its existence. Guiher v. Jackson (1978), 78-0126-AD. {¶10}6) No evidence has shown defendant had constructive notice of the loose pavement marker. {¶11} 7) Furthermore, plaintiff has failed to show defendant negligently maintained its highways. {¶12} 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: Donna M. Houvouras 10195 Forestedge Lane Miamisburg, Ohio 45342 Plaintiff, Pro se Gordon Proctor, Director Department of Transportation 1980 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43223 For Defendant DRB/RDK/laa 6/15 Filed 6/29/04 Sent to S.C. reporter 7/23/04
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.
