Williams v. Dept. of Transp.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Williams v. Dept. of Transp., 2008-Ohio-7134.] 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 FRANK D. WILLIAMS Plaintiff v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Defendant Case No. 2008-09091-AD Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert ENTRY OF DISMISSAL {¶ 1} On August 18, 2008, plaintiff, Frank D. Williams, filed a complaint against defendant, Department of Transportation. Plaintiff alleges on June 6, 2008 at approximately 3:00 p.m. while traveling on the Akron interbelt, he hit an 18' buckel in the street, which caused damage to his 2000 Cadillac DTS. Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $1,373.57 for repair costs as the result of defendant s negligence in maintaining the roadway. Plaintiff submitted the filing fee shortly after filing his complaint. {¶ 2} Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. In support of the motion to dismiss, defendant stated in pertinent part: {¶ 3} Defendant has performed an investigation of this site and the Akron Innerbelt or SR 59 falls under the maintenance jurisdiction of the City of Akron. (See Exhibit A & map) As such, this section of roadway is not within the maintenance jurisdiction of the defendant. {¶ 4} Plaintiff has not responded to defendant s motion to dismiss. The site of Case No. 2008-09091-AD -2- ENTRY the damage-causing incident was located in the City of Akron. {¶ 5} Ohio Revised Code Section 5501.31 in pertinent part states: {¶ 6} Except in the case of maintaining, repairing, erecting traffic signs on, or pavement marking of state highways within villages, which is mandatory as required by section 5521.01 of the Revised Code, and except as provided in section 5501.49 of the Revised Code, no duty of constructing, reconstructing, widening, resurfacing, maintaining, or repairing state highways within municipal corporations, or the culverts thereon, shall attach to or rest upon the director . . . {¶ 7} The site of the damage-causing incident was not the maintenance responsibility of defendant. Consequently, plaintiff s case is dismissed. {¶ 8} Having considered all the evidence in the claim file and, for the reasons set forth above, defendant s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff s case is DISMISSED. The court shall absorb the court costs of this case. ________________________________ DANIEL R. BORCHERT Deputy Clerk Entry cc: Frank D. Williams 3751 Tamarisk Drive Fairlawn, Ohio 44333 DRB/laa 12/18 Filed 12/31/08 Sent to S.C. reporter 3/13/09 Thomas P. Pannett 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.
