Proudfoot v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Proudfoot v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2006-Ohio-7141.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO JOSHUA PROUDFOOT : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2005-10608-AD DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION : MEMORANDUM DECISION Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : {¶ 1} On October 8, 2005, plaintiff, Joshua Proudfoot, was traveling south on Interstate 77 in Stone Creek in Tuscarawas County, when his automobile struck rock and mud debris on the roadway. The rock and mud debris was actually a mudslide condition which had come from a hillside adjacent to Interstate 77. As plaintiff s a result car, of a striking 1996 the Pontiac mud and Sunfire, rock was debris, totaled. Consequently, plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $2,500.00, the statutory maximum award amount in a claim of this type. Plaintiff stated vehicle was $2,500.00. of Transportation property damage. the value of his totally destroyed Plaintiff asserted defendant, Department ( DOT ), should bear liability for his Plaintiff implied his damage was proximately caused by negligence on the part of DOT in failing to warn motorists of a rock or mudslide in the particular roadway area or in preventing such hazardous occurrences. The filing fee was paid. {¶ 2} Defendant denied any liability in this matter based on Case No. 2005-10608-AD -2- MEMORANDUM DECISION the contention DOT personnel did not have any knowledge about rock and mud debris on Interstate 77 prior to the October 8, 2005, property damage occurrence. occurrence at about milepost Defendant located this damage 73.40 on Interstate 77 in Tuscarawas County. Defendant related no records of complaints concerning rock prior to mud and October 8, debris 2005. on the roadway Furthermore, were defendant received explained periodic litter patrol operations were conducted in the area and no problems were discovered. Defendant suggested the rock and mud debris probably existed on the particular area of Interstate 77 for only a relatively short amount of time before, the incident involving negligently in plaintiff. respect to Defendant roadway denied maintenance. acting Furthermore, defendant explained Falling Rock signs were positioned on the roadway shoulder in the general area of plaintiff s property damage occurrence to warn motorists of possible roadway danger. {¶ 3} Defendant has the duty to maintain its highways in a reasonably safe condition for the motoring public. Knickel v. Ohio Department of Transportation (1976), 49 Ohio App. 2d 335. However, highways. defendant 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. warning signs Generally, defendant has a duty to post notifying dangerous conditions. motorists of highway defects Gael v. State (1979), 77-0805-AD. or The facts of the instant claim do not establish defendant breached any duty in respect to signage or roadway maintenance. Case No. 2005-10608-AD -2- MEMORANDUM DECISION {¶ 4} Therefore, in order for plaintiff to recover under a negligence theory he must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, defendant had actual or constructive notice of the rocky debris responded and a in failed negligent Transportation (1976), to respond in a reasonable time or manner. Denis v. Department of 75-0287-AD; O Hearn v. Department of Transportation (1985), 84-03278-AD. A breach of the duty to maintain the highways must be proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, showing defendant had actual or constructive notice of the precise accident. condition or defect alleged to have caused the McClellan v. ODOT (1986), 34 Ohio App. 3d 247. In the instant claim, plaintiff has failed to prove defendant had requisite notice of the rock debris his vehicle struck. No facts have shown defendant had actual or constructive notice of the rock fall which proximately caused plaintiff s damage. {¶ 5} Both plaintiff and DOT in a general sense, had notice of rock falls question. occurring However, on the portion plaintiff has of failed Interstate to 77 prove, in by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant knew or should have known the particular rockslide which resulted in plaintiff s property damage was likely to occur on October 8, 2005. Plaintiff has failed to prove the particular rock face from which the roadway debris originated showed any signs of instability inhibiting, before and October inspecting 8, 2005. measures taken The by precautionary, defendant were adequate and did not fall below the standard of care owed to the traveling public. Consequently, plaintiff has failed to present Case No. 2005-10608-AD -2- MEMORANDUM DECISION any set of facts to invoke ensuing liability on DOT. v. Dept. of Transportation (1999), 99-01047-AD. See Mosby IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO JOSHUA PROUDFOOT : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2005-10608-AD DEPARTMENT 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: Joshua Proudfoot 8699 Fair Street Mineral City, Ohio Plaintiff, Pro se 44656 Gordon Proctor, Director Department of Transportation 1980 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43223 For Defendant RDK/laa 2/7 Filed 2/28/06 Sent to S.C. reporter 3/24/06
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.
