Bryan v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Bryan v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2006-Ohio-371.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO DERRICK BRYAN : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2005-09995-AD : MEMORANDUM DECISION OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION : Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : FINDINGS OF FACT {¶ 1} 1) On September 7, 2005, at about 9:45 p.m., plaintiff, Derrick Bryan, was traveling west on Interstate 480 near milepost 24.2 in Cuyahoga County, when his automobile ran over debris on the traveled portion of the roadway. The debris caused substantial damage to plaintiff s vehicle. {¶ 2} 2) Consequently, plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $592.00, his cost of vehicle repair which he contends was incurred as a result of negligence on the part of defendant, Department of Transportation, in maintaining the roadway. Plaintiff submitted the filing fee. {¶ 3} 3) damage. Defendant has denied any liability for plaintiff s Defendant denied having any knowledge of the debris condition prior to plaintiff s incident. Plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence establishing the length of time the debris condition occurrence. was on the roadway prior to his property damage Defendant conducts frequent inspections in the area of plaintiff s September 7, 2005, property damage event. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW {¶ 4} Defendant has the duty to maintain its highway 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. {¶ 5} In proximately plaintiff order to caused must recover by prove roadway either: in any suit conditions 1) involving including defendant had injury debris, actual or constructive notice of the 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. {¶ 6} 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 any evidence to indicate the length of time the debris condition was present on the roadway prior to the incident forming the basis of this claim. No evidence has been submitted to show defendant had actual notice of the debris. 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 debris 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 debris. {¶ 8} Finally, 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. v. Ohio Department of Transportation (1999), Herlihy 99-07011-AD. Therefore, defendant is not liable for any damage plaintiff may have suffered from the roadway debris. IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO DERRICK BRYAN : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2005-09995-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 defendant. are assessed against plaintiff. Court costs 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: Derrick Bryan 3824 Clague Road North Olmsted, Ohio Plaintiff, Pro se 44070 Gordon Proctor, Director Department of Transportation 1980 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43223 RDK/laa 1/4 Filed 1/18/06 Sent to S.C. reporter 1/27/06 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.
