Woods v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Woods v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2006-Ohio-7259.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO ANGELA WOODS : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2006-02820-AD OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION : MEMORANDUM DECISION : Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : FINDINGS OF FACT {¶ 1} 1) Plaintiff, Angela Woods, stated she, was traveling west on Fulton Road (Rt 687) when a preceding truck ran over a manhole and dislodged the manhole cover. Plaintiff additionally stated the dislodged manhole cover stood up in the hole and plaintiff s car collided with the upright manhole cover causing substantial incident damage occurred to on the March vehicle. 17, 2006, This at property damage approximately 11:40 a.m., near milepost 5.0 on State Route 687 in Stark County. {¶ 2} 2) Plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $2,201.91, the total cost of repairs for her 1992 Ford Tempo for property damage sustained as a result of striking the manhole cover. Plaintiff implied her property damage was proximately caused by negligence on the part of defendant, Department of Transportation ( DOT ), in maintaining a hazardous condition on the roadway. The filing fee was paid. {¶ 3} 3) Defendant denied having any knowledge of the condition of the manhole cover prior to plaintiff s incident. Defendant denied receiving any calls or complaints about a loose manhole cover prior to 11:40 a.m. on March 17, 2006. Defendant explained DOT personnel conducted routine road inspections and did not discover any loose manhole covers on State Route 687 prior to March 17, 2006. {¶ 4} 4) Plaintiff did not provide any evidence to establish the length of time the manhole cover was loose prior to the incident forming the basis of this claim. 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 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), to 34 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 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 condition developed. (1988), 61 Ohio Misc. 2d 262. Spires v. Highway Department However, proof of notice of a dangerous condition is not necessary when defendant s own agents actively cause such condition. (1922), 106 Ohio St. 94, See Bello v. City of Cleveland at paragraph one of the syllabus; Sexton v. Ohio Department of Transportation (1996), 94-13861. {¶ 7} Plaintiff has not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant failed to discharge a duty owed to her or that her negligence. injury was proximately caused by defendant s Plaintiff failed to show the damage-causing object was connected to any conduct under the control of defendant, or any negligence Transportation on the Dept. part of (1998), defendant. 97-10898-AD; Taylor Weininger v. v. Department of Transportation (1999), 99-10909-AD; Witherell v. Ohio Dept. of Transportation (2000), 2000-04758-AD. Plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove defendant maintained a hazardous condition on the roadway which was the substantial Plaintiff or has sole failed cause to of plaintiff s prove, by a property preponderance damage. of the evidence, that defendant s roadway maintenance activity created a nuisance. prove caused a Plaintiff has not submitted conclusive evidence to negligent the damage act or to her omission car. Transportation (2000), 99-12863-AD. on Hall the v. part Ohio of defendant Department of IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO ANGELA WOODS : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2006-02820-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: Angela Woods 5110 Erie Avenue N.W. Canal Fulton, Ohio 44614 Gordon Proctor, Director Department of Transportation 1980 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43223 RDK/laa Plaintiff, Pro se For Defendant 8/22 Filed 9/6/06 Sent to S.C. reporter 4/13/07
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.
