Opinion

Fullmore v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.

  • 2010 Ohio 6633
Court
Ohio Court of Claims
Filed
Oct 12, 2010
Status
Published
On the bench
Borchert
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

[Cite as Fullmore v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2010-Ohio-6633.]

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

DAVID W. FULLMORE

Plaintiff

v.

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Defendant

Case No. 2010-08021-AD

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert

MEMORANDUM DECISION

FINDINGS OF FACT

{¶ 1} 1) Plaintiff, David W. Fullmore, filed this action against defendant,

Department of Transportation (ODOT), alleging the tire on his 2000 Pontiac Grand Am

was damaged as a proximate cause of negligence on the part of ODOT in maintaining a

hazardous condition on the entrance ramp to Interstate 77 South at Wilbeth Road in

Summit County. Plaintiff related he turned left “toward the (Interstate 77) ramp and I hit

a big pot hole that blew the side of my passenger rear tire out.” Plaintiff recalled the

described incident occurred on May 23, 2010 at approximately 2:30 p.m. In his

complaint, plaintiff requested damages in the amount of $117.37, the total cost of a

replacement tire. The $25.00 filing fee was paid and plaintiff requested reimbursement

of that cost along with his damage claim.

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

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

responsibility for the section of Interstate 77 where plaintiff’s incident occurred. In

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

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

of Akron (See Exhibit A and Map).” ODOT further stated, “[a]s such this section of

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

defendant contended the City of Akron is the proper party defendant to plaintiff’s action.

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

{¶ 3} 3) Plaintiff did not respond.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

{¶ 4} 1) 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} 2) 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} 3) 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 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

DAVID W. FULLMORE

Plaintiff

v.

OHIO DEPT. OF TRA.

Defendant

Case No. 2010-08021-AD

Deputy 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, judgment is rendered in favor

of defendant. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff.

________________________________

DANIEL R. BORCHERT

Deputy Clerk

Entry cc:

David W. Fullmore Jolene M. Molitoris, Director

540 Princeton Avenue Department of Transportation

Barberton, Ohio 44203 1980 West Broad Street

Columbus, Ohio 43223

RDK/laa

10/1

Filed 10/12/10

Sent to S.C. reporter 1/21/11

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.