Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Christina L. Senger v. the Ohio Department of Transportation

July 19, 2011

CHRISTINA L. SENGER,, PLAINTIFF,
v.
THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DEFENDANT.



Cite as Senger v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2011-Ohio-5548.

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

Acting Clerk Daniel R. Borchert

MEMORANDUM DECISION

FINDINGS OF FACT

{¶1} In her complaint, plaintiff, Christina Stenger, states that on March 10, 2011, at approximately 8:35 a.m., she was entering northbound I-75 when she "hit a huge pothole" that immediately damaged her tire.

{¶2} Plaintiff contends her property damage was proximately caused by negligence on the part of defendant, Department of Transportation (DOT), in failing to maintain the roadway. Consequently, plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $254.31, the cost of a replacement tire. The filing fee was paid.

{¶3} Defendant denies liability in this matter based on the contention that no DOT personnel had any knowledge of the pothole prior to plaintiff's property-damage event. Defendant states the pothole was located at milepost 2.51 on I-75 in Hamilton County. Defendant denies receiving any reports of the damage-causing pothole prior to the time which plaintiff encountered it.

{¶4} Furthermore, defendant asserts plaintiff has not produced evidence to show DOT negligently maintained the roadway. Defendant explains that the DOT Hamilton County Manager "inspects all state roadways within the county at least two times a month." Apparently no potholes were discovered at milepost 2.51 on I-75 in the vicinity of plaintiff's incident the last time this roadway was inspected prior to March 10, 2011. Defendant stated that "[a] review of the six-month maintenance history [record submitted] also reveals that general maintenance and inspection is conducted to ensure a properly maintained roadway."

{¶5} Plaintiff did not file a response.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

{¶6} 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.

{¶7} 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 pothole 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.

{¶8} To prove a breach of duty by defendant to maintain the highways plaintiff must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that DOT 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. No evidence has shown that ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.