Sobczak v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Sobczak v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2009-Ohio-1569.] 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 VICTORIA L. SOBCZAK Plaintiff v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Defendant Case No. 2004-08324 Judge Joseph T. Clark Magistrate Holly True Shaver JUDGMENT ENTRY {¶ 1} On January 23, 2009, the magistrate issued a decision recommending that defendant s motion for summary judgment be granted. Pursuant to Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i), the court adopted the magistrate s decision on January 23, 2009. {¶ 2} Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i) states, in part: A party may file written objections to a magistrate s decision within fourteen days of the filing of the decision, whether or not the court has adopted the decision during that fourteen-day period as permitted by Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i). Plaintiff timely filed her objections. Defendant filed a response on February 17, 2009. {¶ 3} Plaintiff alleged in her complaint that defendant, Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), negligently designed and constructed a highway entrance ramp, that the ramp was a known hazard, and that ODOT failed to make requested improvements to the ramp. The magistrate recommended that defendant s motion for summary judgment be granted in that ODOT initially designed and constructed the ramp Case No. 2004-08324 -2- JUDGMENT ENTRY according to engineering standards which were in effect at the time of the construction and inasmuch as ODOT had no duty to reconstruct the ramp. {¶ 4} Plaintiff s objections generally reiterate the arguments that were considered and rejected by the magistrate. Although plaintiff references Burns v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. (1987), 39 Ohio App.3d 126, as support for her position, the court notes that in Burns, ODOT had previously undertaken a major reconstruction of State Route 7 from a two-lane to a four-lane highway. The appellate court found that once ODOT made the decision to upgrade the highway, ODOT could be liable for negligent implementation of such decision. {¶ 5} In the instant case, the entrance ramp was constructed in the 1950s. The magistrate concluded that ODOT had no statutory duty either to reconfigure the entrance or to reconstruct the highway upon request by the city of Sylvania. The magistrate further noted that ODOT has no duty to upgrade highways to current design standards when acting in the course of maintenance. Wiebelt v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. (June 24, 1993), Franklin App. No. 93AP-117. Maintenance involves only the preservation of existing highway facilities, rather than the initiation of substantial improvements. Id. See also Galay v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., Franklin App. No. 05AP383, 2006-Ohio- 4113, Rahman v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., Franklin App. No. 05AP-439, 2006-Ohio-3013. {¶ 6} Upon review of the record, the magistrate s decision and the objections, the court finds that the magistrate has properly determined the factual issues and appropriately applied the law. Therefore, the objections are OVERRULED and the court adheres to the judgment previously entered. See Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(i). Judgment is rendered in favor of defendant. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. Case No. 2004-08324 -3- JUDGMENT ENTRY _____________________________________ JOSEPH T. CLARK Judge cc: Daniel N. Abraham 536 South High Street Columbus, Ohio 43215 SJM/cmd Filed March 16, 2009 To S.C. reporter March 31, 2009 Daniel R. Forsythe William C. Becker Assistant Attorneys General 150 East Gay Street, 18th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
