Graham v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Graham v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2006-Ohio-7139.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO MELISSA GRAHAM : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2005-11558-AD OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION : ENTRY OF DISMISSAL : Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : {¶ 1} On against December defendant, 14, 2005, Department plaintiff of filed a complaint Transportation. Plaintiff alleges on April 27, 2005, at approximately 7:15 a.m., while traveling on U.S. 23 in the right hand lane between the 2500 and 2600 block in Portsmouth, Ohio, she struck a pothole causing damage to her vehicle. Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for tire and rim replacement in the amount of $801.66. {¶ 2} On dismiss. January 13, 2006, defendant filed a motion to In support of the motion to dismiss, defendant stated in pertinent part: {¶ 3} The location of plaintiff s incident falls within the project limits Construction. of Project 615-04 with Boone Coleman The first day of work on the project by the contractor was March 14, 2005, but the only work being performed was assistance with utility relocation behind the sidewalk and demolition of houses. restrictions 2005. At were that No work within the roadway and no lane imposed time, by the traffic contractor control contractor from 25th Street south. was until set (See Exhibit A) April up by 19, the On the day of plaintiff s incident, Boone Coleman Construction was working on a waterline at 21st Street. (See Exhibit B and plan page) Case No. 2005-11558-AD -2- ENTRY On either of these dates, the contractor was not working where plaintiff hit her pothole. {¶ 4} Before the contractor started working on the project, maintenance of potholes was the responsibility of the City of Portsmouth. The Scioto County Manager, Troy Huff, contacted the Project Engineer and Area Engineer on March 30, 2005, because he noticed potholes within this project and he was told that the roadway maintenance was the responsibility of the City of Portsmouth. {¶ 5} Plaintiff has not responded to defendant s motion to dismiss. The site of plaintiff s incident was within the city limits of Portsmouth. {¶ 6} R.C. 5501.31 in pertinent part states: {¶ 7} Except in the case of maintaining, repairing, erecting traffic signs on, or pavement marking of state highways within villages, which is mandatory as required by section 5521.01 of the Revised Code, and except as provided in section 5501.49 of the revised code, no duty of constructing, reconstructing, widening, resurfacing, maintaining, or repairing state highways within municipal corporations, or the bridges and culverts thereon, shall attach to or rest upon the director . . . {¶ 8} The site of the damage-causing incident was not the maintenance responsibility of defendant. Consequently, plaintiff s case is dismissed. {¶ 9} and, for Having considered all the evidence in the claim file the reasons dismiss is GRANTED. set forth above, defendant s Plaintiff s case is DISMISSED. motion to The court Case No. 2005-11558-AD -2- ENTRY shall absorb the court costs of this case. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this entry of dismissal and its date of entry upon the journal. ________________________________ DANIEL R. BORCHERT Deputy Clerk Entry cc: Melissa Graham 880 Bertha Avenue #38 Portsmouth, Ohio 45662 Plaintiff, Pro se Thomas P. Pannett, P.E. Assistant Legal Counsel Department of Transportation 1980 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43223 For Defendant DRB/laa 2/21 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.
