Hufford v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as Hufford v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2009-Ohio-7142.] 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 BRENDA J. HUFFORD Plaintiff v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Defendant Case No. 2009-01557-AD Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert MEMORANDUM DECISION FINDINGS OF FACT {¶ 1} 1) On January 6, 2009, at approximately 7:30 p.m., plaintiff, Brenda J. Hufford, was traveling north on State Route 91 in the far right lane at Farmdale Avenue, Akron, when her 2008 Mercedes Benz struck a large pothole causing substantial damage to the vehicle. {¶ 2} 2) Plaintiff asserted the damage to her car was proximately caused by negligence on the part of defendant, Department of Transportation (ODOT), in failing to maintain the roadway free of defective conditions such as potholes. Plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $525.00, the stated cost of automotive repair expense she incurred as a result of the January 6, 2009 incident. The $25.00 filing fee was paid and plaintiff requested reimbursement of that cost along with her damage claim. {¶ 3} 3) Defendant denied liability in this matter based on the contention that no ODOT personnel had any knowledge of the particular pothole on the roadway prior to plaintiff s property damage occurrence. Defendant pointed out ODOT records show no calls or complaints were received regarding the pothole in question, which was located by defendant at milepost 0.29 on SR 91 in Summit County. Defendant suggested, it is more likely than not that the pothole existed in that location for only a relatively short amount of time before plaintiff s incident. Defendant asserted plaintiff has not produced evidence to establish her property damage was attributable to conduct on the part of ODOT. {¶ 4} 4) Furthermore, defendant contended plaintiff has not shown her damage was proximately caused by negligent maintenance. ODOT records show no (0) pothole patching repairs were conducted by defendant s personnel in the vicinity of plaintiff s incident during the six-month period preceding January 6, 2009. Defendant submitted photographs depicting the roadway area in the vicinity of plaintiff s described incident. The photographs depict a roadway surface that appears in good condition on the portions intended for travel, although defects are noted on the roadway berm area. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW {¶ 5} 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 79, 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. {¶ 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 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 pothole 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. {¶ 8} Ordinarily, 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 potholes 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. There is no evidence to show ODOT had actual notice of the pothole prior to plaintiff s damage event. {¶ 9} Additionally, there is no evidence defendant had constructive notice of the pothole at milepost 0.29 on State Route 91. In order for plaintiff to prevail, constructive notice must be proven. 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 pothole appeared on the roadway. Spires v. Ohio Highway Department (1988), 61 Ohio Misc. 2d 262, 577 N.E. 2d 458. Size of the defect (pothole) is insufficient to show notice or duration of existence. O Neil v. Department of Transportation (1988), 61 Ohio Misc. 2d 287, 587 N.E. 2d 891. Therefore, defendant is not liable for any damage that plaintiff may have suffered from the pothole based on constructive notice. Plaintiff has not produced any evidence to infer that defendant, in a general sense, maintains its highways negligently or that defendant s acts caused the defective condition. Herlihy v. Ohio Department of Transportation (1999), 99-07011-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 BRENDA J. HUFFORD Plaintiff v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Defendant Case No. 2009-01557-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: Brenda J. Hufford 591 Griffith Road Akron, Ohio 44312 RDK/laa 10/1 Filed 10/20/09 Sent to S.C. reporter 2/12/10 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.