Opinion
2020-00184AD
09-03-2020
ROGELIO GUERRA, IV Plaintiff v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Defendant
Sent to S.C. Reporter 10/21/21
MEMORANDUM DECISION
{¶1} Rogelio Guerra, IV ("plaintiff) filed this claim against the Ohio Department of Transportation ("ODOT"), to recover damages which occurred when his 2014 Chrysler 300 struck a pothole on January 27, 2020, while he was traveling on United States ("US") 30 East in Wayne County, Ohio. This road is a public road maintained by ODOT. Plaintiffs vehicle sustained damages in the amount of $3,379.00. Plaintiff submitted the $25.00 filing fee.
{¶2} In order to recover on a claim for roadway damages against ODOT, Ohio law requires that a motorist/plaintiff prove all of the following:
{¶3} That the plaintiffs motor vehicle received damages as a result of coming into contact with a dangerous condition on a road maintained by ODOT.
{¶4} That ODOT knew or should have known about the dangerous road condition.
{¶5} That ODOT, armed with this knowledge, failed to repair or remedy the dangerous condition in a reasonable time.
{¶6} In this claim, the court finds that the plaintiff did prove that his vehicle received damages and that those damages occurred as a result of the plaintiffs vehicle coming into contact with a dangerous condition on a road maintained by ODOT.
{¶7} Plaintiff must also prove that ODOT knew or should have known about the dangerous condition to succeed on this claim. See Denis v. Department of Transportation, 75-0287-AD (1976).
{¶8} For constructive notice to exist, a plaintiff must prove that sufficient time has passed after the dangerous condition first appears, so that under the circumstances ODOT should have gained knowledge of its existence. Guiher v. Dept. of Transportation, 78-0126-AD (1978); Gelarden v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., Dist. 4, Ct. of Cl. No. 2007-02521-AD, 2007-Ohio-3047.
{¶9} In the Investigation Report, ODOT indicated that the location of the incident was on US30E, at mile marker 21.0, in Wayne County. This section of the roadway on US30 has an average daily traffic count of 22, 525 vehicles. Despite this volume of traffic, ODOT had received no notice of a pothole on this section of the roadway prior to plaintiffs incident.
{¶10} Within the past six months, ODOT conducted one hundred eighty-five (185) maintenance operations on US30 in Wayne County where this incident occurred. If any pothole was present for any appreciable length of time, it is probable that it would have been discovered by ODOT work crews.
{¶11} However, a review of the COC Damage Incident Report dated the same day as plaintiffs damage-causing incident revealed the following: "(L)arge pothole damaged both front and rear right rims apparently ODOT was on the way to fix it (entered by Kate)." Furthermore, on the Maintenance Report supplied by ODOT, it was revealed that a pothole was patched on January 27, 2020. Accordingly, I find ODOT had actual notice of the pothole in question prior to plaintiffs damage-causing incident.
{¶12} Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $3,379.00, for two sets of 24" custom painted chrome Borghini wheels. However, defendant noted only two tires and two rims were damaged at the time of the incident, so ODOT should only be responsible for one set of rims and two tires that were damaged. Accordingly, ODOT stated if judgment is rendered against them, ODOT should only be responsible for $1,716.00.
{¶13} On July 31, 2020, this court issued an entry allowing plaintiff additional time to file a response to defendant's Investigation Report. However, plaintiff has not submitted a response.
{¶14} Therefore, judgment is rendered in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $1,716.00, plus $25.00 for reimbursement of the filing fee pursuant to the holding in Bailey v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 62 Ohio Misc.2d 19, 587 N.E.2d 990 (Ct. of Cl. 1990).
ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION
{¶15} 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 the plaintiff in the amount of $1,741.00, which includes reimbursement of the $25.00 filing fee. Court costs are assessed against defendant.