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.

Clegg v. Ohio Department of Transportation

Court of Claims of Ohio

October 7, 2019

JEFFREY S. CLEGG Plaintiff
v.
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Defendant

          Sent to S.C. Reporter 12/17/19

          SCOTT SHEETS MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          PATRICK M. MCGRATH JUDGE

         {¶1} On August 15, 2019, defendant Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 56(B). Plaintiff did not file a response. The motion for summary judgment is now before the court for a non-oral hearing pursuant to L.C.C.R. 4. For the reasons stated below, the court hereby grants defendant's motion for summary judgment.

         Standard of Review

         {¶2} Civ.R. 56(C) states, in part, as follows:

Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. No evidence or stipulation may be considered except as stated in this rule. A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears from the evidence or stipulation, and only from the evidence or stipulation, that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that party being entitled to have the evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in the party's favor.

See also Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 662 N.E.2d 264 (1996). In Dresher, the Ohio Supreme Court held, "the moving party bears the initial responsibility of informing the trial court of the basis for the motion, and identifying those portions of the record before the trial court which demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of fact on a material element of the nonmoving party's claim." Id. at 292. A "movant must be able to point to evidentiary materials of the type listed in 56(C)." Id.

         {¶3} When the moving party has satisfied its initial burden, Civ. R. 56(E) imposes a reciprocal burden on the nonmoving party. It states:

Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated in the affidavit. Sworn or certified copies of all papers or parts of papers referred to in an affidavit shall be attached to or served with the affidavit. The court may permit affidavits to be supplemented or opposed by depositions or by further affidavits. When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon mere allegations or denials of his pleadings, but the party's response, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If the party does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the party. (Emphasis added).

         In seeking and opposing summary judgment, parties must rely on admissible evidence. Keaton v. Gordon Biersch Brewery Rest. Group, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 05AP-110, 2006-Ohio-2438, ¶ 18.

         Factual Background

         {¶4} As required, the following facts are stated in a light most favorable to plaintiff. On March 12, 2018, plaintiff was driving eastbound on U.S. 224 near Duck Creek in Mahoning County, Ohio when his vehicle struck a dislodged survey monument box cover in the roadway. (Complaint, p. 1.) Plaintiff states that the survey monument box cover damaged the undercarriage of his vehicle. (Complaint, p. 2.) Plaintiff went to the emergency room following the incident and was required to replace his vehicle. (Complaint, p. 2).

         {¶5} ODOT contends that it had no notice of the condition that caused the accident and that, without notice of any defect, it cannot be held liable for plaintiffs injuries. In support of its motion, defendant submitted the affidavit of Brian Olson, the Area Engineer for District Four. According to Olson, ODOT learns of issues or hazards in the following ways: 1) complaints from the traveling public; 2) reports from law enforcement; 3) reports from surveyors or contractors working in the roadway; and 4) observations from its maintenance personnel. (Defendant's Exhibit A, ¶ 5). ODOT's "telephone logs, radio logs, complaint system records, and work history during the six months preceding Clegg's accident do not reflect any notifications of any issues or hazards in the area of Clegg's accident." (Defendant's Exhibit A, ¶ 6). ODOT did not receive any "complaints or reports from the traveling public, law enforcement, surveyors, contractors, or its maintenance personnel regarding any issues or hazards in the roadway in the area of Clegg's accident during the preceding six months." (Defendant's Exhibit A, ¶ 8). ODOT was also not aware of any survey work being performed in the area ...


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.