Siekfer v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.
This text of 2010 Ohio 1949 (Siekfer v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.) 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.
Opinion
[Cite as Siekfer v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2010-Ohio-1949.]
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
CORY SIEFKER, et al.
Plaintiffs
v.
OHIO DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
Defendant
Case No. 2009-06451-AD
Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert
MEMORANDUM DECISION
{¶ 1} Plaintiffs, Cory Siefker and Meg Buzzi, filed this action alleging their 1997 Honda CR-V was damaged as a proximate cause of negligence on the part of defendant, Department of Transportation (ODOT), in maintaining an overpass bridge spanning Interstate 71 in Columbus. Plaintiffs pointed out they were traveling north on Interstate 71 at approximately 9:45 a.m. on July 7, 2009, when the particular damage incident occurred. Plaintiffs related “[a]s we passed under the 11th Street overpass, water and debris fell from the overpass and struck the front windshield of our 1997 Honda CR-V.” Plaintiffs exited Interstate 71 at the 17th Street exit and discovered the windshield of the vehicle “was partially shattered and cracked.” Plaintiffs filed this complaint seeking to recover $255.47, an amount representing the replacement cost of a windshield, plus the $25.00 filing fee. The filing fee was paid. {¶ 2} Defendant filed an investigation report explaining that ODOT maintains Interstate 71 through Columbus with the City of Columbus bearing the maintenance responsibility for the 11th Street overpass bridge spanning Interstate 71. Essentially, defendant contended ODOT is not the proper party defendant in this action due to the fact the City of Columbus maintains all the overpass bridges spanning Interstate 71 within the city limits. {¶ 3} Plaintiffs did not file a response. The origin site of the damage-causing condition was located within the City of Columbus. The proper party defendant in this action is the City of Columbus. {¶ 4} Ohio Revised Code Section 5501.31 in pertinent part states: {¶ 5} “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 . . .” {¶ 6} The site of the damage-causing incident was not the maintenance responsibility of defendant. Consequently, plaintiff’s case is dismissed.
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
Case No. 2009-06451-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 above, plaintiffs’ case is DISMISSED. Court costs are assessed against plaintiffs.
________________________________ DANIEL R. BORCHERT Deputy Clerk
Entry cc:
Cory Siefker Jolene M. Molitoris, Director Meg Buzzi Department of Transportation 2392 N. 4th Street 1980 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43202 Columbus, Ohio 43223
RDK/laa 12/29 Filed 1/7/10 Sent to S.C. reporter 4/30/10
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2010 Ohio 1949, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siekfer-v-ohio-dept-of-transp-ohioctcl-2010.