Opinion

Thorne v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., Dist. 11

  • 2011 Ohio 6913
Court
Ohio Court of Claims
Filed
Aug 11, 2011
Status
Published
On the bench
Borchert
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 32.2%

The opinion

[Cite as Thorne v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., Dist. 11, 2011-Ohio-6913.]

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

GERALDINE THORNE

Plaintiff

v.

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DISTRICT 11

Defendant

Case No. 2011-06421-AD

Acting Clerk Daniel R. Borchert

MEMORANDUM DECISION

{¶1} Plaintiff, Geraldine Thorne, filed a complaint against defendant,

Department of Transportation (ODOT), alleging that she suffered damage to her 2003

Kia Rio as a proximate result of negligence on the part of ODOT in maintaining a

hazardous condition on State Route 43. Plaintiff stated that she struck a series of

potholes and that she was unable to avoid them because of oncoming traffic. Plaintiff

recalled that the incident occurred on March 10, 2011 at approximately 6:00 a.m.

Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $739.98, the cost of replacement parts and

related repair costs. The filing fee was paid.

{¶2} Defendant filed an investigation report requesting that plaintiff’s claim be

dismissed due to the fact that the Village of Richmond and not ODOT bears the

maintenance responsibility for SR 43 where plaintiff’s incident occurred. In support of

the request to dismiss, ODOT stated that, “[d]efendant’s investigation indicates that the

location of Plaintiff’s incident would be within the municipal boundary of the Village of

Richmond (See Exhibit A).” Defendant asserted that, “[a]s such this section of roadway

is not within the maintenance jurisdiction of the defendant.” Consequently, defendant

contended that the Village of Richmond is the proper party defendant to plaintiff’s

action. The site of the damage-causing incident was located in the Village of Richmond.

{¶3} Plaintiff did not file a response.

{¶4} R.C. 2743.01(A) provides:

{¶5} “(A) ‘State’ means the state of Ohio, including, but not limited to, the

general assembly, the supreme court, the offices of all elected state officers, and all

departments, boards, offices, commissions, agencies, institutions, and other

instrumentalities of the state. ‘State’ does not include political subdivisions.”

{¶6} R.C. 2743.02(A)(1) states in pertinent part:

{¶7} “(A)(1) The state hereby waives its immunity from liability, except as

provided for the office of the state fire marshal in division (G)(1) of section 9.60 and

division (B) of section 3737.221 of the Revised Code and subject to division (H) of this

section, and consents to be sued, and have its liability determined, in the court of claims

created in this chapter in accordance with the same rules of law applicable to suits

between private parties, except that the determination of liability is subject to the

limitations set forth in this chapter and, in the case of state universities or colleges, in

section 3345.40 of the Revised Code, and except as provided in division (A)(2) or (3) of

this section. To the extent that the state has previously consented to be sued, this

chapter has no applicability.”

{¶8} Ohio Revised Code Section 5501.31 in pertinent part states:

{¶9} “Except in the case of maintaining, repairing, erecting traffic signs on, or

pavement marking of state highways within villages, which is mandatory as required by

section 5521.01 of the Revised Code, and except as provided in section 5501.49 of the

Revised Code, no duty of constructing, reconstructing, widening, resurfacing,

maintaining, or repairing state highways within municipal corporations, or the bridges

and culverts thereon, shall attach to or rest upon the director, but he may construct,

reconstruct, widen, resurface, maintain, and repair the same with or without the

cooperation of any municipal corporation, or with or without the cooperation of boards of

county commissioners upon each municipal corporation consenting thereto.”

{¶10} The site of the damage-causing incident was not the maintenance

jurisdiction of defendant. Consequently, plaintiff’s case must be dismissed. See Sandu

v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., Ct. of Cl. No. 2008-02606-AD, 2008-Ohio-6858, Gerzina v.

Ohio Dept. of Transp., Ct. of Cl. No. 2010-09809-AD, 2011-Ohio-1952.

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

GERALDINE THORNE

Plaintiff

v.

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DISTRICT 11

Defendant

Case No. 2011-06421-AD

Acting Clerk Daniel R. Borchert

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, plaintiff’s claim is DISMISSED.

Court costs are assessed against plaintiff.

________________________________

DANIEL R. BORCHERT

Acting Clerk

Entry cc:

Geraldine Thorne Jerry Wray, Director

9521 Ct. Rd. 56 Department of Transportation

Richmond, Ohio 43944 1980 West Broad Street

Columbus, Ohio 43223

8/4

Filed 8/11/11

Sent to S.C. reporter 1/3/12

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.