LaBounty v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as LaBounty v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2006-Ohio-7203.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO CHARLES J. LABOUNTY : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2006-01858-AD OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION : MEMORANDUM DECISION : Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : FINDINGS OF FACT {¶ 1} 1) On January 20, 2006, at approximately 7:00 p.m., a van owned by plaintiff, Charles J. LaBounty, was traveling on State Route 613, one mile east of State Route 500, in Paulding County, when the vehicle struck an uprooted road laying on the traveled portion of the roadway. reflector The reflector caused tire and rim damage to plaintiff s van. {¶ 2} 2) Plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $116.46, his Plaintiff asserted cause negligence of expense he on incurred incurred the for these part of repairing damages his as defendant, Transportation, in maintaining the roadway. vehicle. a proximate Department of Plaintiff paid the filing fee. {¶ 3} 3) Defendant has denied liability based on the fact it had no knowledge the plaintiff s incident. defective condition existed prior to {¶ 4} 4) Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence to indicate the length of time the loosened road reflector was on the roadway surface prior to the January 20, 2006, property damage occurrence. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW {¶ 5} 1) Defendant has the duty to keep the roads in a safe, drivable condition. Amica Mutual v. Dept. of Transportation (1982), 81-02289-AD. {¶ 6} 2) Defendant must exercise due care and diligence in the proper maintenance and repair of highways. Hennessy v. State of Ohio Highway Department (1985), 85-02071-AD. {¶ 7} 3) In plaintiff must constructive failed to order to prove notice respond negligent manner, maintains its recover either: of in or the a 2) highways on a claim of this type, 1) defendant had defect (uprooted reflector) reasonable that time defendant, or negligently. in responded a Denis actual general v. or and in a sense, Department of Transportation (1976), 75-0287-AD. {¶ 8} 4) There is no evidence defendant ad actual notice of the damage-causing reflector. {¶ 9} 5) 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 defective (uprooted reflector) appeared on the roadway. condition Spires v. Highway Department (1988), 61 Ohio Misc. 2d 262. {¶ 10} 6) plaintiff must In order for there to be constructive notice, show sufficient time has elapsed after the dangerous condition (loosened reflector) appears, so that under the circumstances, defendant should have acquired knowledge of its existence. Guiher v. Dept. of Transportation (1978), 78- 0126-AD. {¶ 11} 7) No evidence has shown defendant had constructive notice of the damage-causing reflector. {¶ 12} 8) Plaintiff has not submitted evidence to prove the roadway was negligently maintained. any IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO CHARLES J. LABOUNTY : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2006-01858-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: Charles J. LaBounty 6642 State Route 500 Payne, Ohio 45880 Plaintiff, Pro se Gordon Proctor, Director Department of Transportation 1980 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43223 For Defendant RDK/laa 5/24 Filed 6/20/06 Sent to S.C. reporter 3/16/07
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.
