Iveljic v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as Iveljic v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2009-Ohio-2752.] 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 MICHELE IVELJIC Plaintiff v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Defendant Case No. 2008-09368-AD Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert MEMORANDUM DECISION FINDINGS OF FACT {¶ 1} 1) Plaintiff, Michele Iveljic, asserted she suffered property damage to the front bumper of her 2008 Nissan Rogue while traveling west on Interstate 90 in Cuyahoga County, on August 15, 2008 at approximately 2:00 p.m. Plaintiff described the specific damage incident stating: [a] tire shot out from under the car in front of me (and) smashed into the front end of my bumper causing a dent. Plaintiff pointed out the tire debris that damaged her vehicle was the remnant of a semi-truck that had been left on the roadway. {¶ 2} 2) Plaintiff implied the damage to her vehicle was proximately caused by negligence on the part of defendant, Department of Transportation ( DOT ), in failing to keep the roadway free of debris conditions such as the tire remnant. Plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover damages of $978.58, the cost of automotive repair. The filing fee was paid. {¶ 3} 3) Defendant denied any liability in this matter based on the contention that no DOT personnel had any knowledge of tire debris laying on the roadway prior to plaintiff s property damage event. Defendant denied receiving any calls or complaints regarding debris on the particular roadway area which DOT located between state mileposts 186.0 and 185.0 on Interstate 90 in Cuyahoga County. Defendant cannot determine the length of time the damage-causing debris condition existed on the roadway prior to 2:00 p.m. on August 5, 2008. Defendant suggested, the debris existed in that location for only a relatively short amount of time before plaintiff s incident. Defendant explained DOT conducts routine inspections of the area and presumedly no tire debris were discovered on Interstate 90 the last time the particular section of roadway was inspected prior to August 15, 2008. Defendant further explained DOT personnel conduct frequent maintenance operations and litter pick-ups on Interstate 90 and DOT work crews would have promptly removed any debris found on the roadway in the course of work related duties. Defendant denied the roadway was negligently maintained. Defendant contended all evidence shows plaintiff s damage was caused by an unidentified motorist and DOT cannot be held responsible for the acts of third parties. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW {¶ 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 debris 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. The trier of fact is precluded from making an inference of defendant s constructive notice, unless evidence is presented in respect to the time the debris appeared on the roadway. Spires v. Ohio Highway Department (1988), 61 Ohio Misc. 2d 262, 577 N.E. 2d 458. However, proof of notice of a dangerous condition is not necessary when defendant s own agents actively cause such condition. See Bello v. City of Cleveland (1922), 106 Ohio St. 94, 138 N.E. 526, at paragraph one of the syllabus; Sexton v. Ohio Department of Transportation (1996), 94-13861. {¶ 6} For plaintiff to prevail on a claim of negligence, she must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant owed her a duty, that it breached that duty, and that the breach proximately caused her injuries. Armstrong v. Best Buy Company, Inc. 99 Ohio St. 3d 79, 2003-Ohio-2573, 788 N.E. 2d 1088, ¶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 {¶ 7} Evidence in the instant action tends to show plaintiff s damage was caused by an act of an unidentified third party, not DOT. Defendant has denied liability based on the particular premise it had no duty to control the conduct of a third person except in cases where a special relationship exists between defendant and either plaintiff or the person whose conducts needs to be controlled. Federal Steel & Wire Corp. v. Ruhlin Const. Co. (1989), 45 Ohio St. 3d 171, 543 N.E. 2d 769. However, defendant may still bear liability if it can be established if some act or omission on the part of DOT was the proximate cause of plaintiff s injury. This court, as trier of fact, determines questions of proximate causation. Shinaver v. Szymanski (1984), 14 Ohio St. 3d 51, 14 OBR 446, 471 N.E. 2d 477. {¶ 8} If an injury is the natural and probable consequence of a negligent act and it is such as should have been foreseen in the light of all the attending circumstances, the injury is then the proximate result of the negligence. It is not necessary that the defendant should have anticipated the particular injury. It is sufficient that his act is likely to result in an injury to someone. Cascone v. Herb Kay Co. (1983), 6 Ohio St. 3d 155, 160, 6 OBR 209, 451 N.E. 2d 815, quoting Neff Lumber Co. v. First National Bank of St. Clairsville, Admr. (1930), 122 Ohio St. 302, 309, 171 N.E. 327. {¶ 9} Plaintiff has failed established her damage was proximately caused by any negligent act or omission on the part of DOT. In fact, it appears the cause of plaintiff s injury was the act of an unknown third party which did not involve DOT. Plaintiff has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant failed to discharge a duty owed to plaintiff, or that plaintiff s injury was proximately caused by defendant s negligence. Plaintiff failed to show the damage-causing object at the time of the damage incident was connected to any conduct under the control of defendant or any negligence on the part of defendant proximately caused the damage. Herman v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. (2006), 2006-05730-AD. 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 MICHELE IVELJIC Plaintiff v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Defendant Case No. 2008-09368-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 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: Michele Iveljic 33510 Lakeshore Blvd. Lakeline Village, Ohio 44095 RDK/laa 2/19 Filed 3/5/09 Sent to S.C. reporter 6/11/09 Jolene M. Molitoris, Director Department of Transportation 1980 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43223

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.