Opinion
2020-00092AD
05-14-2020
AARON D. MOTLEY, II Plaintiff v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Defendant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
{¶1} Aaron D. Motley, II ("plaintiff") filed this claim against the Ohio Department of Transportation ("ODOT"), to recover damages which occurred when his 2019 Volkswagen Arteon struck a pothole on January 19, 2020, while he was traveling on Interstate Route ("IR") 71 North, just south of mile marker/exit 94, in Franklin County, Ohio. This road is a public road maintained by ODOT. Plaintiffs vehicle sustained damages in the amount of $421.40 which included the replacement of one tire which was damaged by the pothole and one tire which it was necessary to replace with the replacement of the first tire. Along with the complaint, plaintiff submitted photographs of the damaged tire, receipts for the labor and tire costs, and photographs of the Owner's Manual for his vehicle stating that tires should be replaced in pairs. Plaintiff submitted the $25.00 filing fee.
{¶2} ODOT filed an Investigation Report and Motion to Reduce Prayer Amount to exclude the cost of the second replacement tire. In support of the filing, ODOT states that it was "willing to settle this claim for the costs to repair actual vehicle damage; not the second (2nd) tire plaintiff chose to replace." ODOT claims the actual damage to the car was two hundred ten dollars and seventy cents ($210.70).
{¶3} Plaintiff did submit a response to defendant's Investigation Report reaffirming his position.
{¶4} 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 cost of the second tire, "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).
{¶5} Plaintiff would not have incurred the cost of the second tire but for the negligence of defendant. Plaintiffs vehicle requires replacement of tires in pairs. See Miller v. Ohio Department of Transportation, 2014-00894AD (2015). 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).
{¶6} Upon review of the invoice submitted by plaintiff, the court determines plaintiff is entitled to the cost of the replacement for the second tire.
{¶7} Defendant's Motion to Reduce Prayer Amount is DENIED.
{¶8} Therefore, judgment is rendered in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $421.40, 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} The court finds pursuant to section (F) of the Chief Justice's tolling entry of March 27, 2020, that filing a Motion for Court Review or waiver "requires immediate attention." Accordingly, within thirty (30) days, either party may file a Motion for Court Review or a waiver. Failure to comply will result in the decision rendered being final.
{¶10} 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 $446.40, which includes reimbursement of the $25.00 filing fee. Court costs are assessed against defendant.