Hochschild v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Hothschild v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2006-Ohio-1016.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO ALLAN HOCHSCHILD : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2005-10080-AD : MEMORANDUM DECISION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : FINDINGS OF FACT {¶ 1} 1) On September 18, 2005, at approximately 9:15 a.m., plaintiff, Allan Hochschild, was traveling west on Interstate 480, just before Grayton Road in Cuyahoga County, when his vehicle struck an uprooted road reflector laying on the traveled portion of the roadway. Plaintiff stated two tires of his vehicle were damaged as a result of striking the reflector. {¶ 2} 2) Plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $379.37, his expense incurred for repairing his vehicle. Plaintiff asserted cause he incurred these damages as a proximate of negligence on the part of defendant, Department of Transportation, in maintaining the roadway. Plaintiff paid the filing fee and requests that amount as damages. {¶ 3} 3) Defendant has denied liability based on the fact it had no knowledge the defective condition existed prior to plaintiff s incident. Defendant claimed the first time it became aware of the condition was when plaintiff called on September 19, 2005, to report the uprooted reflector. {¶ 4} 4) On November 29, 2005, plaintiff filed a response to defendant s investigation report, however, he has not submitted any evidence to indicate the length of time the loosened road reflector was on the roadway surface prior to the September 18, 2005, property damage occurrence. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW {¶ 1} 1) Defendant has the duty to keep the roads in a safe, drivable condition. Amica Mutual v. Dept. of Transportation (1982), 81-02289-AD. {¶ 2} 2) Defendant must exercise due care and diligence in the proper maintenance and repair of highways. Hennessy v. State of Ohio Highway Department (1985), 85-02071-AD. {¶ 3} 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 (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. {¶ 4} 4) There is no evidence defendant had actual notice of the damage-causing reflector. {¶ 5} 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 (reflector) appeared on the roadway. Spires v. Highway Department (1988), 61 Ohio Misc. 2d 262. {¶ 6} 6) In order for there to be constructive notice, plaintiff must show sufficient time has elapsed after the dangerous condition (loosened reflector) appears, so that under the circumstances, defendant should have acquired knowledge of its existence. Guiher v. Department of Transportation (1978), 78-0126-AD. {¶ 7} 7) No evidence has shown defendant had constructive notice of the damage-causing reflector. {¶ 8} 8) Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence to prove the roadway was negligently maintained. IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO ALLAN HOCHSCHILD : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2005-10080-AD : ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION 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: Allan Hochschild 5014 Douglas Drive N. Olmsted, Ohio 44070 Plaintiff, Pro se Gordon Proctor, Director Department of Transportation 1980 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43223 For Defendant RDK/laa 1/19 Filed 2/14/06 Sent to S.C. reporter 3/3/06
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.
