2010-Ohio-6668
No. 2010-06541-AD.Court of Claims of Ohio.
Filed November 2, 2010.
MEMORANDUM DECISION {¶ 1} Plaintiff, Eric Lee Grilliot, filed this action against defendant, Department of Transportation (ODOT), contending his 1993 Chevrolet S10 truck was damaged as a proximate cause of negligence on the part of ODOT in maintaining a hazardous condition on Interstate 75 North in Hamilton County. Specifically, plaintiff related the tire and rim on his truck were damaged when the vehicle struck a pothole “just before the I-275 merge” on Interstate 75. Plaintiff filed this complaint requesting damage recovery in the amount of $718.92, the total cost of replacement parts needed resulting from the described incident. Plaintiff recalled that his property damage event occurred on April 10, 2010 at approximately 10:00 p.m. The filing fee was paid.
{¶ 2} Defendant denied liability in this matter based on the contention that no ODOT personnel had any knowledge of the particular damage-causing pothole prior to plaintiffs April 10, 2010 described occurrence. Defendant located the particular pothole “at milepost 16.77 on I-75 in Hamilton County” and advised that “ODOT did not receive any reports of the pothole or have knowledge of the pothole prior to the (April 10, 2010)
Page 2
incident.” Defendant submitted a copy of “Maintenance Records” recording ODOT maintenance activity on Interstate 75 from October 10, 2009 to April 10, 2010. The submitted documents show ODOT personnel performed pothole patching operations in the vicinity of plaintiffs incident on March 2, 2010, March 3, 2010, and March 4, 2010.
{¶ 3} Defendant denied ODOT negligently maintained Interstate 75 in Hamilton County. Defendant noted the ODOT “Hamilton County Manager inspects all state roadways within the county at least two times a month.” Apparently no potholes were discovered at milepost 16.77 on Interstate 75 North the last time that section of roadway was inspected prior to April 10, 2010. The claim file is devoid of any copy of ODOT Hamilton County inspection records. Defendant asserted the particular location of Interstate 75 is a well patrolled location and suggested the pothole plaintiffs vehicle struck “existed for only a short time before the incident.”
{¶ 4} For plaintiff to prevail on a claim of negligence, he must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant owed him a duty, that it breached that duty, and that the breach proximately caused his injuries. Armstrong v. Best Buy Company, Inc., 99 Ohio St. 3d 79, 2003-Ohio-2573, ¶ 8 citing Menifee v. Ohio Welding Products, Inc. (1984), 15 Ohio St. 3d 75, 77, 15 OBR 179, 472 N.E. 2d 707. Plaintiff has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he suffered a loss and that this loss was proximately caused by defendant’s negligence Barnum v. Ohio State University (1977), 76-0368-AD. However, “[i]t is the duty of a party on whom the burden of proof rests to produce evidence which furnishes a reasonable basis for sustaining his claim. If the evidence so produced furnishes only a basis for a choice among different possibilities as to any issue in the case, he fails to sustain such burden.
Page 3
Paragraph three of the syllabus i Steven v. Indus. Comm. (1945), 145 Ohio St. 198, 30 O.O. 415, 61 N.E. 2d 198, approved and followed.
{¶ 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 Rhodus v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. (1990), 67 Ohio App. 3d 723, 588 N.E. 2d 864.
{¶ 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 accident 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. There is no evidence that defendant had actual notice of the pothole. Therefore, to find liability on a notice theory, evidence of constructive notice of the pothole must be presented.
Page 4
{¶ 7} “[Constructive notice is that which the law regards as sufficient to give notice and is regarded as a substitute for actual notice or knowledge.” In re Estate of Fahle (1950), 90 Ohio App. 195, 197-198, 47 O.O. 231, 105 N.E. 2d 429. “A finding of constructive notice is a determination the court must make on the facts of each case not simply by applying a pre-set-time standard for the discovery of certain road hazards.” Bussard, at 4. “Obviously, the requisite length of time sufficient to constitute constructive notice varies with each specific situation.” Danko v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. (Feb. 4, 1993), Franklin App. 92AP-1183. In order for there to be a finding of constructive notice, plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that sufficient time has elapsed after the dangerous condition appears, so that under the circumstances defendant should have acquired knowledge of its existence Guiher v. Dept. of Transportation (1978), 78-0126-AD Gelarden v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., Dist. 4, Ct. of Cl. No. 2007-02521-AD, 2007-Ohio-3047.
{¶ 8} The trier of fact is precluded from making an inference of defendant’s constructive notice, unless evidence is presented in respect to the time that the pothole appeared on the roadway. Spires v. Ohio Highway Department (1988), 61 Ohio Misc. 2d 262, 577 N.E. 2d 458. No evidence was presented to establish the length of time that the particular pothole was present. Size of the defect (pothole) is insufficient to show notice or duration of existence. O’Neil v. Department of Transportation (1988), 61 Ohio Misc. 2d 287, 587 N.E. 2d 891. Plaintiff has failed to prove that defendant had constructive notice of the pothole. Plaintiff has not produced any evidence to infer that defendant, in a general sense, maintains its highways negligently or that defendant’s acts caused the defective condition. Herlihy v. Ohio Department of Transportation
Page 5
(1999), 99-07011-AD. Therefore, defendant is not liable for any damage that plaintiff may have suffered from the roadway.
Page 6
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.
Entry cc:
Eric Lee Grilliot 876 Hickory Lane Troy, Ohio 45373
Jolene M. Molitoris, Director Department of Transportation 1980 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43223
Page 1