Beitzel v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., Dist. 11

2010 Ohio 2022
CourtOhio Court of Claims
DecidedJanuary 22, 2010
Docket2009-06036-AD
StatusPublished

This text of 2010 Ohio 2022 (Beitzel v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., Dist. 11) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Beitzel v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., Dist. 11, 2010 Ohio 2022 (Ohio Super. Ct. 2010).

Opinion

[Cite as Beitzel v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., Dist. 11, 2010-Ohio-2022.]

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

BONNIE BEITZEL

Plaintiff

v.

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DISTRICT 11

Defendant

Case No. 2009-06036-AD

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert

ENTRY OF DISMISSAL

{¶ 1} On July 7, 2009, plaintiff, Bonnie Beitzel, filed a complaint against defendant, Department of Transportation. Plaintiff alleges on or about May 6, 2009 at approximately 5:40 p.m., while traveling north on State Route 93, outside of Baltic, Ohio, by the post office, when her vehicle struck a deep pothole causing tire and wheel damage. Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $482.50 due to the negligence of defendant in maintaining the roadway. {¶ 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 this section of SR 93 falls under the maintenance jurisdiction of the Village of Baltic. (See Exhibit A) 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 the damage-causing incident was located in the Village of Baltic. Case No. 2009-06036-AD -2- ENTRY

{¶ 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 bridges and 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:

Bonnie Beitzel Jolene M. Molitoris, Director 2173 Kevin Court N.E. Department of Transportation New Philadelphia, Ohio 44663 1980 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43223 DRB/laa Filed 1/22/10 Sent to S.C. reporter 5/7/10

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2010 Ohio 2022, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beitzel-v-ohio-dept-of-transp-dist-11-ohioctcl-2010.