Opinion
2022-00501AD
10-27-2022
SETH STONEROCK Plaintiff v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Defendant
Sent to S.C. Reporter 2/7/23
MEMORANDUM DECISION
{¶1} Seth Stonerock ("plaintiff") filed this claim against the defendant, Ohio Department of Transportation ("ODOT"), to recover damages which occurred when his dump truck struck a pothole on March 2, 2022, while he was traveling northbound on United State ("US") Route 23, at County mile marker 16, (State mile marker 71.16) in Pickaway County, Ohio. This road is a public road maintained by ODOT. Plaintiff's vehicle sustained damages in the amount of $9,227.28. Plaintiff submitted the $25.00 filing fee.
{¶2} On September 1, 2022, defendant filed an Investigation Report/Motion to Dismiss. Defendant asserted the claim should be dismissed for the following reason:
"The Jones Truck &Spring Repair Inc. Invoice attached to Plaintiff's Complaint is billed to "Trueline Logistics" not Plaintiff. The C&S Mobile Repair LLC, TruckPro Holding Corporation, and A-1 Tire Invoices are billed to "Trueline LLC" not Plaintiff. (See Exhibit A) Seth Stonerock lacks standing to bring a claim for reimbursement for damages suffered by another entity-namely Trueline Logistics and/or Trueline LLC. Defendant contends that if Seth Stonerock is not the owner of the vehicle, then he is not the proper party to file this claim against defendant. (See Exhibit A) Likewise, if Seth Stonerock is the owner of Trueline Logistics and/or Trueline LLC, he cannot file a claim on either entity's behalf. Under Ohio law, a complaint may not be signed by a non-attorney who is not the plaintiff. See, e.g., R.C. 4705.01; Washington v. Dept. of Human Services (1995), 100 Ohio App.3d 32: Sheridan
Mobile Village, Inc. v. Larsen (1992), 78 Ohio App.3d 203, Williams v. Global Constr. Co., Ltd. (1985), 26 Ohio App.3d 119."
{¶3} Defendant does not reach the merits of this case.
{¶4} However, this Court in S.H. Mason Lease Management, LLC v. Ohio Department of Transportation, 2009-06401-AD, stated the following:
{¶5} "The question presented in whether a wholly owned LLC needs representation by an attorney to pursue an action for an administrative determination under R.C. 2743.10 in the Court of Claims of Ohio. The Supreme Court addressed the issue whether a non-attorney claimant may represent Limited Liability Companies before the Small Claims Division of the Cleveland Heights Municipal Court in the case of Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Pearlman, 106 Ohio St.3d 136, 2005-Ohio-4107. The court stated:
{¶6} "'[W]hile this court unquestionably has the power to prohibit lay representation before an administrative agency, it is not always necessary or desirable for the court to exercise that power to its full extent. The power to regulate includes the authority to grant as well as the authority to deny, and in certain limited settings, the public interest is better served by authorizing laypersons to engage in conduct that might be viewed as the practice of law.' at ¶ 11.
{¶7} "The Supreme Court held that a layperson could represent a Limited Liability Company in Small Claims Court since 1) small claims courts provide fast and fair adjudications as an alternative to the traditional judicial proceedings, 2) attorneys may appear, but are not required to appear, 3) jurisdiction of the small claims division is limited to $3000, 4) claims for punitive damages, exemplary damages, and prejudgment attachment are not permitted, 5) there are no jury trials, 6) neither the Ohio Rules of Evidence nor the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure apply, and 6) pro se activity is assumed and encouraged. ¶ 15.
{¶8} In the case at bar, 1) judgment is limited to $10,000.00, 2) action is commenced by filling out a form complaint, 3) rules of evidence shall not be applicable and procedures shall be governed by rules promulgated by the clerk, which shall be informal, and shall be designed to accommodate persons who are not studied in the law, and 4) all decisions are rendered administratively with no opportunity for examination, cross examination, or presentation of legal arguments.
{¶9} "Accordingly, based upon the particular facts of this case, Seth Stonerock is the sole owner of Trueline Logistics and/or Trueline LLC, he may represent the interests of the Limited Liability Company without the services of an attorney, as long as his activities are confined appropriately."
{¶10} Accordingly, defendant's Investigation Report/Motion to Dismiss is DENIED, since Seth Stonerock does not need an attorney to represent the LLC.
{¶11} On another matter, in order to recover on a claim for roadway damages against ODOT, Ohio law requires that a motorist/plaintiff prove all of the following:
{¶12} That the plaintiff's motor vehicle received damages as a result of coming into contact with a dangerous condition on a road maintained by ODOT.
{¶13} That ODOT knew or should have known about the dangerous road condition.
{¶14} That ODOT, armed with this knowledge, failed to repair or remedy the dangerous condition in a reasonable time.
{¶15} 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 plaintiff's vehicle coming into contact with a dangerous condition on a road maintained by ODOT.
{¶16} 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). Based on the evidence presented, the court is unable to find that ODOT had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition. Further, this court is unable to find that ODOT should have known about the dangerous condition and thus would have had constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Constructive notice is defined as "(n)otice arising from the presumption of law from the existence of facts and circumstances that a party has a duty to take notice of...Notice presumed by law to have been acquired by a person and thus imputed to that person." (Black's Law Dictionary at 1090 8th Ed. 2004.)
{¶18} 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. This, the plaintiff has been unable to do.
{¶19} In the Investigation Report, ODOT indicated that the location of the incident was on U.S. 23 at county mile marker 16.0 in Pickaway County. This section of the roadway on U.S. 23 has an average daily traffic count of 33,141 vehicles. Despite this volume of traffic, ODOT had received zero (0) notices of a pothole on this section of the roadway prior to plaintiff's incident.
{¶20} Within the past six months, ODOT conducted thirty-two (32) maintenance operations on U.S. 23 in Pickaway 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. It is thus likely that the pothole developed only shortly before plaintiff struck it with his vehicle.
{¶21} Plaintiff did not file a response to defendant's Investigation Report.
{¶22} Under Ohio law, the burden of proof in civil claims like this one rests on the plaintiff. The plaintiff, to succeed on the claim, must prove that ODOT either knew or reasonably should have known about the defective condition on the roadway. Plaintiff has not met this burden.
{¶23} Finally, the law in Ohio is that ODOT is not an absolute insurer of a motorist's safety on the highway. Kniskern v. Township of Somerford, 112 Ohio App.3d 189, 678 N.E.2d 273 (10th Dist. 1996); Rhodus v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 67 Ohio App.3d 723, 588 N.E.2d 864 (10th Dist. 1990). The department is only liable for damage when the court finds that it was negligent. This, the court is unable to do.
{¶24} Since the plaintiff is unable to prove that the defendant knew or should have known about this dangerous condition, the claim must fail.
ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION
{¶25} Having considered all the evidence in the claim file, and for the reasons set forth in the memorandum decision filed concurrently herewith, defendant's Investigation Report/Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. Judgment is rendered in favor of the defendant. Court costs shall be absorbed by the court, in excess of the filing fee.