Opinion
2021-00614AD
03-03-2022
CONOR MEEKS Plaintiff v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Defendant
Sent to S.C. Reporter 1/18/23
MEMORANDUM DECISION
{¶1} Conor Meeks ("plaintiff) filed this claim against the defendant, Ohio Department of Transportation ("ODOT"), to recover damages which occurred when his 2016 BMW 750 I struck a pothole on September 18, 2021, while he was traveling southbound on Interstate Route ("IR") 75, 100 yards north of Exit 2A, in Hamilton County, Ohio. This road is a public road maintained by ODOT. Plaintiff's vehicle sustained damages in the amount of $2,730.31, including transportation costs from the accident. Plaintiff submitted the $25.00 filing fee.
{¶2} On December 22, 2021, ODOT filed an Investigation Report and Motion to Reduce prayer amount which asserts that ODOT should be responsible for only the two tires damaged. Furthermore, ODOT contends it should not be responsible for the Lyft fare plaintiff incurred from the accident site to his residence. Finally, ODOT asserted it is willing to settle this claim but R.C. 2743.02(D) should apply and plaintiff should be required to submit his insurance information.
{¶3} However, plaintiffs damage-causing incident occurred on September 18, 2021, and the amendment to R.C. 2743.02(D) was not effective until September 30, 2021. Since plaintiffs damage-causing incident occurred prior to this date, the provisions of R.C. 2743.02(D) do not apply.
{¶4} Plaintiff submitted a response to ODOT's Investigation Report. He submitted a copy of his auto insurance policy.
{¶5} Defendant has admitted liability for the damages caused to plaintiffs vehicle. Billups v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 2000-10634-AD, jud. (2001). With respect to the Lyft expenses that plaintiff incurred due to the damage sustained to his vehicle, "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., 6 Ohio St.3d 155, 160, 451 N.E.2d 815 (1983), quoting Neff Lumber Co. v. First National Bank of St. Clairsville, Admr, 122 Ohio St. 302, 309, 171 N.E. 327 (1930). See also, Jaffery, et al. v. Ohio Department of Transportation, 2018-01378AD jud (2019). This court, as trier of fact, determines questions of proximate causation. Shinaver v. Szymanski (1984), 14 Ohio St.3d 51, 471 N.E.2d 477 (1984).
{¶6} Plaintiff would not have incurred the Lyft expense but for the negligence of defendant. Accordingly, this is a compensable expense. See Maust v. Ohio BMV, Ct. of Cl. 2005-11248-AD, 2006-Ohio-7149.
{¶7} Damage assessment is a matter within the function of the trier of fact. Litchfield v. Morris, 25 Ohio App.3d 42, 495 N.E.2d 462 (10th Dist. 1985). Reasonable certainty as to the amount of damages is required, which is that degree of certainty of which the nature of the case admits. Bemmes v. Pub. Emp. Retirement Bd, 102 Ohio App.3d 782, 658 N.E.2d 31 (12th Dist. 1995). Plaintiff requests four tires be replaced but only two were damaged. This court has awarded all four tires be reimbursed on a four-wheel drive vehicle, due to safety concerns. See Robinson v. Ohio Department of Transportation, 2020-00365AD (2020); Grimm v. Ohio Department of Transportation, 2020-00332AD, and Fletcher v. Ohio Department of Transportation, 2021-00113AD (2021). Plaintiff drives a four-wheel drive vehicle so, accordingly, all four tires will be reimbursed.
{¶8} Therefore, judgment is rendered in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $2,730.31, 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
{¶9} 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 $2,755.31, which includes reimbursement of the $25.00 filing fee. Court costs are assessed against defendant.