Ramos v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., (Ohio 2008)
Linked as:
Summary
Automobile damage, debris. No notice. Burden of proof, duty of care. Judgment for defendant.
Summary
Automobile damage, debris. No notice. Burden of proof, duty of care. Judgment for defendant.
Text
[Cite as Ramos v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2008-Ohio-7101.]
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
TIFFANY RAMOS
Plaintiff v.
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Defendant
Case No. 2008-07128-AD
Clerk Miles C. Durfey MEMORANDUM DECISION
FINDINGS OF FACT
1) On May 27, 2008, plaintiff, Tiffany Ramos, was traveling west on Interstate 480 in the vicinity of the Tiedeman Exit in Cleveland when her 2007 Mazda CX7 struck a piece of metal on the roadway causing tire and rim damage to the vehicle.
2) Plaintiff implied that the damage to her car 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 piece of metal pipe. Plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover damages of $433.42, the cost of a replacement tire and rim. Plaintiff paid the filing fee and requested reimbursement of that cost along with her damage claim.
3) Defendant denied any liability in this matter based on the contention that no DOT personnel had any knowledge of a metal pipe 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 at state milepost
- 1 -
13.80 on Interstate 480 in Cuyahoga County. Defendant cannot determine the length of time that the damage-causing debris condition existed on the roadway prior to May 27, 2008. Defendant suggested that, "the debris existed in that location for only a relatively short amount of time before plaintiff's incident." Defendant explained that the DOT County Manager "conducts roadway inspections on all state roadways within the county on a routine basis, at least one to two times a month." Defendant further explained that DOT and DOT work crews would have promptly removed any debris found on the roadway in the course of work related duties. Defendant denied that the roadway was negligently maintained.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
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.
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 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 condition 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 that 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 syl abus; Sexton v. Ohio Department of Transportation (1996), 94-13861.
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
- 2 -
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 syl abus in Steven v. Indus. Comm. (1945), 145 Ohio St. 198, 30 O.O. 415, 61 N.E. 2d 198, approved and followed.
Evidence in the instant action tends to show that plaintiff's damage was caused by an act of an unidentified third party, not DOT. Defendant has denied liability based on the particular premise that 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 conduct needs to be control ed. 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.
"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.
Plaintiff has failed to establish that her damage was proximately caused by any negligent act or omission on the part of DOT. In fact, it appears that 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 that the damage-causing object at the
- 3 -
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
TIFFANY RAMOS
Plaintiff v.
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Defendant
Case No. 2008-07128-AD
Clerk Miles C. Durfey
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.
____________________
MILES C.
DURFEY
Clerk
- 4 -
Entry cc: Tiffany Ramos
James G. Beasley, Director
363 Butternut Lane
Department of Transportation Berea, Ohio 44017
1980 West Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio
43223 RDK/laa 10/15 Filed 12/3/08 Sent to S.C. reporter 2/25/
- 5 -
Sponsored links
