Opinion

Mayo v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.

  • 2011 Ohio 6912
Court
Ohio Court of Claims
Filed
Aug 11, 2011
Status
Published
On the bench
Borchert
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

[Cite as Mayo v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2011-Ohio-6912.]

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

HENRIETTA MAYO

Plaintiff

v.

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Defendant

Case No. 2011-06218-AD

Acting Clerk Daniel R. Borchert

MEMORANDUM DECISION

FINDINGS OF FACT

{¶1} Plaintiff, Henrietta Mayo, filed this action against defendant, Department of

Transportation (ODOT), alleging that she suffered property damage to her car as a

proximate result of negligence on the part of ODOT in maintaining a hazardous

condition on Route 33 in Franklin County. Plaintiff related she was traveling from Route

33 west toward I-70 west on February 12, 2011, at approximately 11:45 a.m. when her

vehicle struck a pothole. The impact of striking the pothole caused tire damage to

plaintiff’s vehicle. In her complaint, plaintiff requested damages in the amount of

$584.00, the stated cost of replacement parts and reimbursement of the filing fee. The

$25.00 filing fee was paid.

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

dismissed due to the fact the City of Columbus and not ODOT bears the maintenance

responsibility for the section of US 33 where plaintiff’s incident occurred. In support of

the request to dismiss, ODOT stated, “[d]efendant has performed an investigation of this

site and the City of Columbus takes care of this area.” Defendant submitted

documentation (Exhibit A) showing that the particular section of US 33 near I-70 is

located within the maintenance jurisdiction of the City of Columbus. ODOT advised,

“[a]s such, this section of roadway is not within the maintenance jurisdiction of the

defendant.” The site of the damage-causing incident was located in the City of

Columbus.

{¶3} Plaintiff filed a response indicating she intends to file a claim for

reimbursement from the City of Columbus.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

{¶4} R.C. 2743.10(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} R.C. 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 . . .”

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

jurisdiction of defendant. Consequently, plaintiff’s case is dismissed.

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

HENRIETTA MAYO

Plaintiff

v.

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Defendant

Case No. 2011-06218-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:

Henrietta Mayo Jerry Wray, Director

587 Bantry Bay Court Department of Transportation

Galloway, Ohio 43119 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.