[Cite as Belluardo v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., Dist. 12, 2011-Ohio-6938.]
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
JOSEPH BELLUARDO
Plaintiff
v.
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12
Defendant
Case No. 2011-07168-AD
Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert
MEMORANDUM DECISION
{¶1} Plaintiff, Joseph Belluardo, filed this action against defendant, Ohio
Department of Transportation (ODOT), contending his 2007 Subaru Impreza was
damaged as a proximate result of negligence on the part of ODOT in maintaining a
hazardous condition on Interstate 77. Specifically, plaintiff asserted the driver’s side
rims, tires and struts on his car were damaged when the vehicle struck a piece of wood
in the traveled portion of the roadway. Plaintiff described his damage incident occurred
in the following manner, “near the east 22nd street exit, I ran over what looked like a
railroad tie * * * stretched out across the center lane.” Plaintiff recalled his damage
event occurred on February 14, 2011, at approximately 7:00 p.m. In his complaint,
plaintiff requested damages in the amount of $2,106.10, the total cost of replacement
parts and related expense associated with having his car repaired. The $25.00 filing fee
was paid.
{¶2} Defendant denied liability based on the contention that no ODOT
personnel had any knowledge of the damage-causing debris condition prior to plaintiff’s
incident. Defendant located the debris at milepost 162.75 on I-77 in Cuyahoga County
and advised ODOT did not receive any calls or complaints for debris at that location
despite the fact the particular “section of roadway has an average daily traffic count
between 68,230 and 72,880 vehicles.” Defendant asserted plaintiff failed to establish
the length of time the debris existed on the roadway prior to his property damage event.
Defendant suggested, “that the debris existed in that location for only a relatively short
amount of time before plaintiff’s incident.” Defendant insisted no ODOT personnel had
any knowledge of a wooden object at milepost 162.75 on I-77 prior to the described
incident forming the basis of this claim. Defendant contended plaintiff failed to establish
the damage-causing debris condition was attributable to any conduct on the part of
ODOT.
{¶3} Defendant related the ODOT “Cuyahoga County Manager conducts
roadway inspections on all state roadways within the county on a routine basis, at least
one to two times a month.” Apparently, no debris was discovered at milepost 162.75 on
I-77 the last time that section of roadway was inspected before February 14, 2011. The
claim file is devoid of any inspection record. Defendant did submit a six-month
maintenance history of the specific roadway area in question which recorded seventeen
litter patrol operations were performed in the relevant northbound area of I-77 during the
time frame covered. According to the submitted maintenance history, the last time
ODOT personnel were working in the area when litter was removed was on February
14, 2011. Defendant stated “if ODOT personnel had found any debris it would have
been picked up.” Defendant argued plaintiff failed to produce evidence to show his
property damage was proximately caused by negligent maintenance on the part of
ODOT.
{¶4} For plaintiff to prevail on a claim of negligence, he must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that defendant owed him a duty, that it breached that
duty, and that the breach proximately caused his injuries. Armstrong v. Best Buy
Company, Inc., 99 Ohio St. 3d 79, 2003-Ohio-2573,¶8 citing Menifee v. Ohio Welding
Products, Inc. (1984), 15 Ohio St. 3d 75, 77, 15 OBR 179, 472 N.E. 2d 707. Plaintiff
has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he suffered a loss
and that this loss was proximately caused by defendant’s negligence. Barnum v. Ohio
State University (1977), 76-0368-AD. However, “[i]t is the duty of a party on whom the
burden of proof rests to produce evidence which furnishes a reasonable basis for
sustaining his claim. If the evidence so produced furnishes only a basis for a choice
among different possibilities as to any issue in the case, he fails to sustain such
burden.” Paragraph three of the syllabus in Steven v. Indus. Comm. (1945), 145 Ohio
St. 198, 30 O.O. 415, 61 N.E. 2d 198, approved and followed.
{¶5} Defendant has the duty to maintain its highways in a reasonably safe
condition for the motoring public. Knickel v. Ohio Department of Transportation (1976),
49 Ohio App. 2d 335, 3 O.O. 3d 413, 361 N.E. 2d 486. However, defendant is not an
insurer of the safety of its highways. See Kniskern v. Township of Somerford (1996),
112 Ohio App. 3d 189, 678 N.E. 2d 273; Rhodus v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. (1990), 67
Ohio App. 3d 723, 588 N.E. 2d 864.
{¶6} In order to prove a breach of the duty to maintain the highways, plaintiff
must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant had actual or
constructive notice of the precise condition or defect alleged to have caused the
accident. McClellan v. ODOT (1986), 34 Ohio App. 3d 247, 517 N.E. 2d 1388.
Defendant is only liable for roadway conditions of which it has notice but fails to
reasonably correct. Bussard v. Dept. of Transp. (1986), 31 Ohio Misc. 2d 1, 31 OBR
64, 507 N.E. 2d 1179.
{¶7} Defendant professed liability cannot be established when requisite notice
of the damage-causing conditions cannot be proven. However, proof of notice of a
dangerous condition is not necessary when defendant’s own agents actively caused
such condition. See Bello v. City of Cleveland (1922), 106 Ohio St. 94, 138 N.E. 526, at
paragraph one of the syllabus; Sexton v. Ohio Department of Transportation (1996), 94-
13861. Plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence to prove that his property damage
was caused by a defective condition created by ODOT or that defendant knew about
the particular debris condition prior to 7:00 p.m. on February 14, 2011.
{¶8} Ordinarily, to recover in any suit involving injury proximately caused by
roadway conditions including debris, plaintiff must prove that either: 1) defendant had
actual or constructive notice of the debris condition and failed to respond in a
reasonable time or responded in a negligent manner, or 2) that defendant, in a general
sense, maintains its highways negligently. Denis v. Department of Transportation
(1976), 75-0287-AD. Plaintiff has not provided any evidence to prove that ODOT had
actual notice of the damage-causing condition. Therefore, in order to recover plaintiff
must offer proof of defendant’s constructive notice of the condition as evidence to
establish negligent maintenance.
{¶9} “[C]onstructive notice is that which the law regards as sufficient to give
notice and is regarded as a substitute for actual notice or knowledge.” In re Estate of
Fahle (1950), 90 Ohio App. 195, 197-198, 47 O.O. 231, 105 N.E. 2d 429. “A finding of
constructive notice is a determination the court must make on the facts of each case not
simply by applying a pre-set time standard for the discovery of certain road hazards.”
Bussard, at 4. “Obviously, the requisite length of time sufficient to constitute
constructive notice varies with each specific situation.” Danko v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.
(Feb. 4, 1993), Franklin App. 92AP-1183. In order for there to be a finding of
constructive notice, plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
sufficient time has elapsed after the dangerous condition appears, so that under the
circumstances defendant should have acquired knowledge of its existence. Guiher v.
Dept. of Transportation (1978), 78-0126-AD; Gelarden v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., Dist. 4,
Ct. of Cl. No. 2007-02521-AD, 2007-Ohio-3047.
{¶10} Plaintiff has not produced any evidence to indicate the length of time that
the wooden debris was present on the roadway prior to the incident forming the basis of
this claim. Plaintiff has not shown that defendant had actual notice of the condition.
Also, the trier of fact is precluded from making an inference of defendant’s constructive
notice, unless evidence is presented in respect to the time that the wooden debris
appeared on the roadway. Spires v. Ohio Highway Department (1988), 61 Ohio Misc.
2d 262, 577 N.E. 2d 458. There is no indication that defendant had constructive notice
of the debris on the roadway.
{¶11} Plaintiff has not produced any evidence to infer defendant, in a general
sense, maintains its highways negligently or that defendant’s acts caused the defective
condition or conditions. Herlihy v. Ohio Department of Transportation (1999), 99-07011-
AD.
{¶12} Plaintiff has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
defendant failed to discharge a duty owed to plaintiff, or that plaintiff’s injury was
proximately caused by defendant’s negligence. Plaintiff failed to show that the damage-
causing object at the time of the damage incident was connected to any conduct under
the control of defendant or any negligence on the part of defendant proximately caused
the damage. Herman v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. (2006), 2006-05730-AD; Husak v. Ohio
Dept. of Transp., Ct. of Cl. No. 2008-03963-AD, 2008-Ohio-5179.
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
JOSEPH BELLUARDO
Plaintiff
v.
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DISTRICT 12
Defendant
Case No. 2011-07168-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:
Joseph Belluardo Jerry Wray, Director
126 Dover Place Department of Transportation
Northfield Center, Ohio 44067 1980 West Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43223
SJM/laa
8/24
Filed 8/26/11
Sent to S.C. reporter 1/19/12