Arnold v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as Arnold v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2006-Ohio-7209.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO SARAH ARNOLD : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2006-02471-AD DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION : MEMORANDUM DECISION Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : FINDINGS OF FACT {¶ 1} 1) Plaintiff, Sarah Arnold, stated she was traveling north on Interstate 75 on January 25, 2006, at approximately 5:30 p.m., when her 1993 Honda Accord struck a huge pothole causing substantial damage to the vehicle. the damage to her automobile included Plaintiff related two bent rims, two punctured tires, a broken strut, a broken coil spring, and a broken front bumper. {¶ 2} 2) Plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $1,941.16, her total cost of automotive repair, which plaintiff contends she incurred as a result of negligence on the part of defendant, Department of Transportation ( DOT ), in maintaining the roadway. The filing fee was paid. {¶ 3} 3) Defendant denied liability based on the contention that no DOT personnel had any knowledge of the damage-causing pothole prior to plaintiff s incident. particular Defendant suggested the pothole plaintiff s car struck probably existed, for only a short time before the incident. Defendant related Case No. 2006-02471-AD -2- MEMORANDUM DECISION DOT, called plaintiff to get a more specific location (of the pothole) and she stated that it was at milemarker 12.0 in Hamilton County. Defendant generally located the pothole at the Lockland approach to Corporation and Reading Road. Defendant s evidence shows complaints were received by DOT on January 19, and January 20, 2006 about potholes on Interstate 75 in Hamilton County. However, complaints were received about potholes at locations on Interstate 75 other than milepost 12.0. {¶ 4} 4) Despite filing a response, plaintiff did not submit any evidence to establish the length of time the damage-causing pothole existed prior to the January 25, 2006, property damage event. Plaintiff stated the pothole her car struck was actually located at milepost 9.6 on Interstate 75 and not milepost 12.0. Plaintiff pointed out she finally pulled her automobile over at around milepost 12.0 after striking a pothole at around milepost 9.6. Plaintiff noted DOT s complaint log shows a pothole complaint was received on January 6, 2006, regarding a pothole at milepost 9.0 on Interstate 75. Defendant s records show potholes were patched on Interstate 75 on January 9, January 10, January 24, and January 25, 2006. were conducted milepost 9.6 plaintiff s between were mileposts patched incident. on These patching operations 8.5 and January Plaintiff 25, related 15.0. Potholes 2006, there at the day of are several potholes between mileposts 9.0 and 13.0 on Interstate 75 that have not been repaired to date. Plaintiff maintained the pothole her car struck at milepost 9.6 had not been repaired as of May 21, 2006. Plaintiff submitted photographs depicting the Case No. 2006-02471-AD -2- MEMORANDUM DECISION pothole at milepost 9.6 on Interstate 75. after examining the photographs, finds The trier of fact, the defects depicted appear to be minor. {¶ 5} 5) Furthermore, defendant explained a DOT employee conducts roadway inspections of Interstate 75 at least two times a month and Defendant 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. Bussard v. Dept. of Transp. (1986), 31 Ohio Misc. 2d 1. {¶ 8} 3) There is no evidence defendant had actual notice of the damage-causing pothole. Case No. 2006-02471-AD {¶ 9} 4) The -2- trier of MEMORANDUM DECISION 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) notice or Size of the defect (pothole) is insufficient to show duration of existence. O Neil v. Department of Transportation (1988), 61 Ohio Misc. 2d 297. {¶ 11} 6) In order plaintiff must show dangerous condition for there sufficient (pothole) to be time constructive has appears, elapsed so notice, after under that the the circumstances, defendant should have acquired knowledge of the existence of the defect. Guiher v. Department of Transportation (1978), 78-0126-AD. {¶ 12} 7) No evidence has shown defendant had constructive notice of the pothole. {¶ 13} 8) evidence, Plaintiff has not shown, by a preponderance of the that defendant failed to discharge a duty owed to plaintiff, or that plaintiff s injury was proximately caused by defendant s negligence. Plaintiff failed to show that the damage-causing pothole was connected to any conduct under the control of defendant or that there was any negligence on the part of defendant or its agents. Taylor v. Transportation Dept. (1998), 97-10898-AD; Weininger v. Department of Transportation (1999), 99-10909-AD; Witherell v. Ohio Dept. of Transportation (2000), 2000-04758-AD. Case No. 2006-02471-AD -2- MEMORANDUM DECISION IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO SARAH ARNOLD : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2006-02471-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: Sarah Arnold 923 Delhi Drive Trenton, Ohio 45067 Gordon Proctor, Director Department of Transportation 1980 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43223 Plaintiff, Pro se For Defendant Case No. 2006-02471-AD RDK/laa 6/9 Filed 6/30/06 Sent to S.C. reporter 3/21/07 -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.