Krendl v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.

2010 Ohio 4956

• Court: Ohio Court of Claims
• Decided: June 11, 2010
• Docket: 2009-09736-AD
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Krendl v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2010-Ohio-4956.]

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

STEVE KRENDL

Plaintiff

v.

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Defendant

Case No. 2009-09736-AD

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert

MEMORANDUM DECISION

{¶ 1} Plaintiff, Steve Krendl, filed this action against defendant, Department of Transportation (ODOT), contending that his 2006 BMW 330I was damaged as a proximate cause of negligence on the part of ODOT in maintaining a hazardous roadway condition on Interstate 270 in Franklin County. Specifically, plaintiff noted the right front tire on his vehicle was damaged when it struck a large pothole, “on the Cleveland Avenue exit ramp from I-270 W in Columbus on the middle to right portion of the road.” Plaintiff recalled his damage incident occurred at approximately 3:00 p.m. on December 6, 2009. Plaintiff seeks damage recovery in the amount of $329.17, the cost of a replacement tire. The filing fee was paid. {¶ 2} Defendant denied liability based on the contention that no ODOT personnel had any knowledge of the particular damage-causing pothole prior to plaintiff’s December 6, 2009 described incident. Defendant advised ODOT records show no complaints of a pothole were received at the location on Interstate 270 described by plaintiff (milepost 27.35). Defendant noted the particular section of roadway, “has an average daily traffic count between 124,950 and 151,700 vehicles,” yet no prior complaints were received regarding a pothole at milepost 27.35 on Interstate 270. Defendant suggested, “it is more likely than not that the pothole existed in that location for only a relatively short amount of time before plaintiff’s incident.” Defendant asserted that plaintiff failed to offer any evidence to prove his property damage was attributable to ODOT personnel. Defendant contended plaintiff failed to prove his property damage was proximately caused by negligent maintenance on the part of ODOT. Defendant explained that the ODOT “Franklin County Manager conducts roadway inspections on all state roadways within the county on a routine basis, at least one to two times a month.” Apparently no potholes were discovered at milepost 27.35 on Interstate 270 the last time that section of roadway was inspected before December 6, 2009. Defendant’s maintenance records show “that three (3) pothole patching operations were conducted in the general vicinity of plaintiff’s incident.” during the six- month period prior to December 6, 2009. The maintenance record (copy submitted) indicates ODOT crews patched potholes in the area including milepost 27.35 on June 10, 2009, September 8, 2009, and September 16, 2009. Defendant contended plaintiff failed to produce evidence to establish the length of time the particular pothole existed prior to 3:00 p.m. on December 6, 2009. Defendant stated that “if ODOT personnel had detected any defects they would have been promptly scheduled for repair.” {¶ 3} To prevail on a claim of negligence, plaintiff 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. 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.” Paragraph three of the syllabus in Steven v. Indus. Comm. (1945), 145 Ohio St. 198, 30 O.O. 415, 61 N.E. 2d 198, approved and followed. {¶ 4} 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. {¶ 5} 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 defendant had actual notice of the pothole on Interstate 270 prior to December 6, 2009. {¶ 6} Therefore, to find liability, plaintiff must prove that ODOT had constructive notice of the defect. 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 defective condition developed. Spires v. Ohio Highway Department (1988), 61 Ohio Misc. 2d 262, 577 N.E. 2d 458. {¶ 7} In order for there to be constructive notice, plaintiff must show 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 . Size of the defect 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. “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, 31 Ohio Misc. 2d 1, 31 OBR 64, 507 N.E. 2d 1179. “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. No evidence has shown that ODOT had constructive notice of the pothole. {¶ 8} Generally, in order to recover in a suit involving damage proximately caused by roadway conditions including potholes, plaintiff must prove that either: 1) defendant had actual or constructive notice of the potholes and failed to respond in a reasonable time or responded in a negligent manner, or 2) that defendant, in a general sense, maintains its highways negligently. Denis v. Department of Transportation (1976), 75-0287-AD. The fact that defendant’s “Maintenance History” reflects pothole repairs were made in the vicinity of plaintiff’s incident on various occasions does not prove negligent maintenance of the roadway on the part of ODOT. 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 (1999), 99-07011-AD. Therefore, defendant is not liable for any damage plaintiff may have suffered from the pothole. {¶ 9} In the instant claim, plaintiff has failed to introduce sufficient evidence to prove that defendant maintained a known hazardous roadway condition. Plaintiff failed to prove his property damage was connected to any conduct under the control of defendant, that defendant was negligent in maintaining the roadway area, or that there was any actionable negligence on the part of defendant. Taylor v. Transportation Dept. (1998), 97-10898-AD; Weininger v. Department of Transportation (1999), 99-10909-AD; Witherell v. Ohio Dept. of Transportation (2000), 2000-04758-AD. Consequently, plaintiff’s claim is denied.

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

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Defendant

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:

Steve Krendl Jolene M. Molitoris, Director 1621 Cardiff Road Department of Transportation Upper Arlington, Ohio 43221 1980 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43223 RDK/laa 5/14 Filed 6/11/10 Sent to S.C. reporter 10/11/10