Wood v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Wood v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2008-Ohio-4196.] Court of Claims of Ohio The Ohio Judicial Center 65 South Front Street, Third Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 www.cco.state.oh.us BRIDGET M. WOOD Plaintiff v. OHIO DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION Defendant Case No. 2008-01693-AD -2- MEMORANDUM DECISION Case No. 2008-01693-AD Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert MEMORANDUM DECISION FINDINGS OF FACT {¶ 1} 1) On December 14, 2007, at approximately 2:00 p.m., plaintiff, Bridget M. Wood, was traveling north on State Route 99, past milemarker 5, by HanvilleCorners Rd. in Huron County, when her truck tire was punctured by an uprooted road reflector laying on the traveled portion of the roadway. {¶ 2} 2) Plaintiff implied that the damage to her tire was proximately caused by negligence on the part of defendant, Department of Transportation ( DOT ), in failing to maintain the roadway. Plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $95.80, the cost of a replacement tire. Plaintiff paid the filing fee and requested reimbursement of that amount along with her damage claim. {¶ 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 the plaintiff s December 14, 2007 property damage occurrence. Defendant located the damage- causing reflector at approximately milepost 5.58 on State Route 99 in Huron County. Defendant asserted that plaintiff failed to produce any evidence showing how long the uprooted reflector existed prior to 2:00 p.m. on December 14, 2007. {¶ 4} 4) Defendant denied receiving any calls or complaints regarding the particular reflector before plaintiff s incident. Defendant explained that DOT employees conduct routine road inspections on State Route 99 and did not notice any loose reflectors. Defendant suggested that the loose reflector likely, existed in that location for only a relatively short amount of time before plaintiff s incident, forming the basis of this claim. Defendant denied that DOT employees were negligent in regard to roadway Case No. 2008-01693-AD -3- MEMORANDUM DECISION 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, 3 O.O. 3d 413, 361 N.E. 2d 486. However, defendant is not an insurer of the safety of its highways. See Kniskern v. Township of Somerford (1996), 112 Ohio App. 3d 189, 678 N.E. 2d 273. {¶ 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 condition or defect alleged to have caused the incident. McClellan v. ODOT (1986), 34 Ohio App. 3d 247, 517 N.E. 2d 1388. 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, 31 OBR 64, 507 N.E. 2d 1179. {¶ 7} Plaintiff has not produced sufficient evidence to indicate the length of time that the particular defect 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. 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. Spires v. Ohio Highway Department (1988), 61 Ohio Misc. 2d 262, 577 N.E. 2d 458. 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. (1999), 99-07011-AD. Herlihy v. Ohio Department of Transportation Case No. 2008-01693-AD -4- MEMORANDUM DECISION Court of Claims of Ohio The Ohio Judicial Center 65 South Front Street, Third Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 www.cco.state.oh.us BRIDGET M. WOOD Plaintiff v. OHIO DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION Defendant Case No. 2008-01693-AD Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION Having considered all the evidence in the claim file and, for the reasons set forth in the memorandum decision filed concurrently herewith, judgment is rendered in favor of defendant. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff. ________________________________ DANIEL R. BORCHERT Deputy Clerk Entry cc: Bridget M. Wood 767 Holiday Drive Willard, Ohio 44890 RDK/laa 5/8 Filed 5/29/08 Sent to S.C. reporter 8/18/08 James G. Beasley, Director Department of Transportation 1980 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43223
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.
