Huey v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Huey v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2006-Ohio-7198.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO CHRIS HUEY : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2006-01416-AD OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION : MEMORANDUM DECISION : Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : FINDINGS OF FACT {¶ 1} 1) On January 1, 2006, at approximately 3:30 p.m., plaintiff, Chris Huey, was traveling on the Route 4 bypass in Butler County just north of Tylersville Road when his automobile tire was struck by a loose road reflector that had been propelled into the path of his vehicle by another motorist. Plaintiff related the reflector was loose laying on the roadway when, the car in front of me struck the reflector and sent the reflector tumbling, toward his vehicle. {¶ 2} 2) Plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $132.49, the asserted he negligence total incurred on the cost of these part a replacement damages of as a tire. proximate defendant, Plaintiff cause Department Transportation ( DOT ), in maintaining the roadway. of of Plaintiff paid the filing fee. {¶ 3} 3) Defendant denied liability based on the contention that no DOT personnel had any knowledge of the loose reflector on the roadway prior to plaintiff s January 1, 2006, property Case No. 2006-01416-AD -2- damage Defendant occurrence. MEMORANDUM DECISION located the damage-causing reflector at about milepost 2.75 on State Route 4 in Butler County. Defendant asserted plaintiff failed to produce any evidence showing how long the uprooted reflector existed prior to 3:30 p.m. on January 1, 2006. {¶ 4} 4) Defendant denied receiving any calls or complaints regarding the particular reflector before plaintiff s incident. Defendant explained DOT employees were conducting maintenance activities on State Route 4 on December 28, 2005, and did not notice any loose road reflectors. Defendant suggested the loose reflector likely, existed for only a relatively short amount of time before plaintiff s incident, forming the basis of this claim. Defendant denied DOT employees were negligent in regard to roadway maintenance. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW {¶ 5} 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, 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. {¶ 6} In order to prove a breach of the duty to maintain the highways, plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant had actual or constructive notice of the precise accident. condition McClellan or v. defect ODOT alleged (1986), 34 to have Ohio caused App. 3d the 247. Case No. 2006-01416-AD -2- MEMORANDUM DECISION 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 sufficient evidence to indicate the length of time the particular pothole was present on the roadway prior to the incident forming the basis of this claim. Plaintiff has not shown defendant had actual notice of the loosened reflector for a sufficient length of time to invoke liability. 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 defect appeared on the roadway. Misc. 2d 262. Spires v. Highway Department (1988), 61 Ohio There is no indication defendant had constructive notice of the uprooted reflector. 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. Herlihy Transportation (1999), 99-07011-AD. v. Ohio Department of Case No. 2006-01416-AD -2- MEMORANDUM DECISION IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO CHRIS HUEY : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2006-01416-AD OHIO 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: Chris Huey 4408 Raceview Avenue Cincinnati, Ohio 45211 Plaintiff, Pro se Gordon Proctor, Director Department of Transportation 1980 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43223 For Defendant Case No. 2006-01416-AD RDK/laa 5/24 Filed 6/20/06 Sent to S.C. reporter 3/16/07 -2- MEMORANDUM DECISION
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.
