Ackerman v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Ackerman v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2004-Ohio-7289.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO DEBRA ACKERMAN, et al. : Plaintiffs : v. : CASE NO. 2004-08022-AD : MEMORANDUM DECISION OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION : Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : {¶ 1} On July 13, 2004, at approximately 8:00 p.m., plaintiff, Justin Ackerman, was traveling south on Interstate 275 between the State Route 125 and the Five Mile Road exits near an overpass area, when his automobile struck an area of the roadway where the pavement had buckled. highway blow up. The buckled pavement area was caused by a The automobile received body damage from striking the pavement blow up. Automotive repair costs in the amount of $200.00 were paid by plaintiff, Debra Ackerman, Justin Ackerman s mother. Plaintiffs have asserted the damage to Justin Ackerman s vehicle was defendant, proximately Department Interstate 275. caused of by negligence Transportation on (DOT), in the part of maintaining Plaintiffs related they were informed by DOT personnel that the roadway pavement essentially exploded due to hot and humid weather conditions. Consequently, plaintiffs filed this complaint seeking to recover $200.00, the cost of automotive repair needed resulting rom the July 13, 2004, incident. requisite material filing fee was paid by plaintiff, The Debra Ackerman. {¶ 2} Defendant acknowledged Justin Ackerman damaged his vehicle when he drove over a roadway pavement blow up on Interstate 275 at milemarker 67.40 in Clermont County or milemarker 35.97 in Hamilton County. However, defendant denied any liability in this matter based on the assertion DOT did not have any notice of the pavement blow up prior to the July 13, 2004, incident forming the basis of this claim. Defendant pointed out the initial criterion for a liability determination in a highway blow up claim is establishing DOT s notice of the defective condition (blow up), see Knickel v. Ohio Dept. of Transportation (1976), 49 Ohio App. 2d 335, (general not specific particular notice that a deteriorated roadway condition is likely to occur is the standard for a liability judgment). highway Defendant also pointed out generalized notice of a blow up and resulting liability are shown under circumstances, where temperatures are extremely hot for extended lengths of time. 95-10297-AD. Allen v. Department of Transportation (1996), The likelihood of a blow up occurrence may be substantiated by providing evidence of extreme weather conditions, Allen, id. However, weather evidence is not essential to a liability determination in an action for property damage caused by a highway blow up. The temperature at the time of the highway blow up incident in Allen was approximately 89°F to 90°F. The maximum relative humidity from July 1 to July 13, 2004, ranged from 90% to 100%. {¶ 3} Defendant reiterated it did not have actual notice of the highway blow up prior to July 13, 2004. any calls or complaints about Ackerman s property damage event. the Defendant did not receive blow up prior to Justin Defendant contended notice of the blow up cannot be imputed due to the fact temperatures for the month of July 2004, in the Cincinnati, Ohio area were not extremely hot enough for a sufficient length of time to invoke a standard for notice expressed in Allen, supra. Defendant asserted plaintiffs have failed to prove requisite notice and therefore, have failed to establish any liability on the part of DOT for the property damage sustained on July 13, 2004. {¶ 4} Pavement upheavals or blow ups occur suddenly with little or no advance presage. Highway blow ups can and do occur under weather conditions prevalent in the summer season in the state of Ohio. Such prevalent weather conditions were shown in the instant action. Contrary to defendant s position the key issue to prove liability for highway blow up damages was outlined in Knickel, supra. The issue regards generalized notice and generalized foreseeability that blow ups can and do occur and when such a roadway deterioration occurs with resulting damage, DOT is liable for that damage. prove the Plaintiffs have offered sufficient evidence to property damage claimed was proximately caused by defendant s negligence. IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO DEBRA ACKERMAN, et al. : Plaintiffs : v. : CASE NO. 2004-08022-AD : ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION OHIO DEPARTMENT 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 plaintiff, Debra Ackerman, in the amount of $225.00, which includes the filing fee. Court costs are assessed against defendant. 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: Debra Ackerman Justin Ackerman 1915 Berkshire Road Cincinnati, Ohio 45230 Plaintiffs, Pro se Gordon Proctor, Director Department of Transportation 1980 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43223 For Defendant RDK/laa 11/17 Filed 12/1/04 Sent to S.C. reporter 1/10/05
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.
