Opinion

Taylor v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.

  • 2011 Ohio 5726
Court
Ohio Court of Claims
Filed
Jul 21, 2011
Status
Published
On the bench
Borchert
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

[Cite as Taylor v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2011-Ohio-5726.]

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

RENA ANN TAYLOR, : Case No. 2011-04380-AD

Plaintiff,

v. : Acting Clerk Daniel R. Borchert

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,

Defendant. : MEMORANDUM DECISION

{¶ 1} Plaintiff, Rena Taylor, filed a complaint against defendant, Department of

Transportation (ODOT), alleging that she suffered tire and rim damage to her vehicle as

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

condition on State Route 7. Plaintiff stated that she “hit a pothole and immediately–I

knew my car was damaged.” Plaintiff recalled that the incident occurred on March 14,

2011 at approximately 6:15 a.m. Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $481.35, the

cost of a replacement tire 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 City of Steubenville and not ODOT bears the

maintenance responsibility for SR 7 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 City of

Steubenville, Ohio. (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 City of Steubenville is the proper party defendant to

plaintiff’s action. The site of the damage-causing incident was located in the City of

Steubenville.

{¶ 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

RENA ANN TAYLOR, : Case No. 2011-04380-AD

Plaintiff,

v. : Acting Clerk Daniel R. Borchert

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,

Defendant. : MEMORANDUM DECISION

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:

Rena Ann Taylor Jerry Wray, Director

Department of Transportation

1980 West Broad Street

Columbus, Ohio 43223

7/6

Filed 7/21/11

Sent to S.C. reporter 11/4/11

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.