Furey v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as Furey v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2006-Ohio-7201.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO MARILYN D. FUREY : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2006-01521-AD OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION : MEMORANDUM DECISION : Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : FINDINGS OF FACT {¶ 1} 1) On January 12, 2006, plaintiff, Marilyn D. Furey, was exiting from Interstate 75 North onto the Mitchell exit ramp when her automobile struck a large pothole causing tire and rim damage. {¶ 2} 2) Plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $376.62, her total cost of automotive repair and related expenses which plaintiff contends she incurred as a result of negligence on the part of defendant, Department Transportation ( DOT ), in maintaining the roadway. of The $25.00 filing fee was paid. {¶ 3} 3) Defendant denied liability based on the fact it professed to have no knowledge of the damage-causing pothole prior to plaintiff s incident. Defendant suggested the pothole plaintiff s car struck probably existed for only a short time before the incident. Defendant denied receiving any prior complaints about the pothole which DOT located at milepost 6.46 on I-75 in Hamilton County. Case No. 2006-01521-AD -2- MEMORANDUM DECISION {¶ 4} 4) Plaintiff did not submit any evidence to establish the length of time the pothole existed prior to the January 12, 2006, property damage event. {¶ 5} 5) Furthermore, defendant explained a DOT employee conducts roadway inspections of Interstate 76 at least two times a month Defendant and any discovered contended, defects plaintiff did are not promptly produce repaired. sufficient evidence to prove DOT breached any duty of care owed to the traveling public in respect to roadway maintenance. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW {¶ 6} 1) 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. {¶ 7} 2) 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. Defendant is only liable for roadway conditions of which it has notice, but fails to reasonably correct. Transp. (1986), 31 Ohio Misc. 2d 1. Bussard v. Dept. of Case No. 2006-01521-AD -2- MEMORANDUM DECISION {¶ 8} 3) There is no evidence defendant had actual notice of the damage-causing pothole. {¶ 9} 4) The trier of fact is precluded from making an inference of defendant s constructive notice, unless evidence is presented in respect (pothole) developed. to the time the defective condition Spires v. Highway Department (1988), 61 Ohio Misc. 2d 262. {¶ 10} 5) Size of the defect (pothole) is insufficient to show notice or duration of existence. O Neil v. Department of Transportation (1988), 61 Ohio Misc. 2d 297. {¶ 11} 6) plaintiff must dangerous condition In order for there to be constructive notice, show sufficient (pothole) time has appears, elapsed so that after the under the circumstances, defendant should have acquired knowledge of the existence of the defects. Guiher v. Department of Transportation (1978), 78-0126-AD. {¶ 12} 7) No evidence has shown defendant had constructive notice of the pothole. {¶ 13} 8) Furthermore, plaintiff has defendant negligently maintained the roadway. failed to show Case No. 2006-01521-AD -2- MEMORANDUM DECISION IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO MARILYN D. FUREY : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2006-01521-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: Marilyn D. Furey 2714 E. Tower Drive Apt. 209 Cincinnati, Ohio 45238 Plaintiff, Pro se Gordon Proctor, Director Department of Transportation 1980 West Broad Street For Defendant Case No. 2006-01521-AD Columbus, Ohio RDK/laa 5/24 Filed 6/20/06 Sent to S.C. reporter 43223 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.