Elegant Limousines, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Elegant Limousines, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2006-Ohio-7256.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO ELEGANT LIMOUSINES, INC. : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2005-10306-AD OHIO DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION : MEMORANDUM DECISION Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : FINDINGS OF FACT {¶ 1} 1) On October 18, 2003, at approximately 7:40 p.m., a 1999 Lincoln Town Car owned by plaintiff, Elegant Limousines, Inc., was struck traveling a tire substantial south laying damage to on on Interstate the 75 roadway. plaintiff s car. when the vehicle The tire caused The incident was approximately located near milepost 46.0 on Interstate 75 in Montgomery County. {¶ 2} 2) Consequently, plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $1,071.44, the cost of automotive repair which plaintiff 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) Defendant has denied any liability for plaintiff s damage. Defendant denied having any knowledge debris condition prior to plaintiff s incident. of the tire Plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence establishing the length of time the tire property debris damage condition occurrence. was on the Defendant roadway prior suggested the to the debris condition existed for a short period of time prior to plaintiff s October 18, 2003, 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 highways. is not an insurer of the safety of its 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 order proximately plaintiff to caused must by prove recover in roadway either: 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, negligently. in a general sense, maintains its highways 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. from making an Additionally, the trier of fact is precluded inference of defendant s constructive notice, unless evidence is presented in respect to the time the debris appeared on the roadway. 61 Ohio Misc. 2d 262. Spires v. Highway Department (1988), There is no indication defendant had constructive notice of the debris. {¶ 8} Finally, infer defendant, negligently condition. 99-07011-AD. or plaintiff in that a has general not produced sense, defendant s acts any maintains caused evidence its the to highways defective Herlihy v. Ohio Department of Transportation (1999), Therefore, defendant is not liable for any damage plaintiff may have suffered from the roadway debris. IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO ELEGANT LIMOUSINES, INC. : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2005-10306-AD OHIO DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION : ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Having considered all the evidence in the claim file and, for the reasons concurrently defendant. set forth herewith, in the judgment is memorandum rendered decision in filed favor Court costs are assessed against plaintiff. of 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: Lawrence J. White 2533 Far Hills Ave. 2nd Floor Dayton, Ohio 45402 Attorney for Plaintiff Gordon Proctor, Director Department of Transportation 1980 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43223 For Defendant RDK/laa 8/16 Filed 9/6/06 Sent to S.C. reporter 4/13/07
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.
