 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bernard v. Dep't of Transportation2/20/2004
hat ODOT had either actual or constructive notice of an unreasonably hazardous condition. Presley v. Norwood (1973), 36 Ohio St.2d 29; McClellan v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. (1986), 34 Ohio App.3d 247.
Based on the totality of the evidence in this case, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that ODOT had either actual or constructive prior notice of any defect on I-280 in the area where the incident is alleged to have occurred. The evidence shows that the Greenbelt Parkway area was very heavily traveled and that ODOT had received no complaints regarding a defect in the areas in question. The evidence also shows that, although it was late evening when the incident occurred, there were no adverse weather conditions and the road was dry and clear. Further, plaintiff admitted that he had driven through this zone numerous times, and had even done so a few days prior to this incident. In short, plaintiff has failed to prove his claim of negligence.
Accordingly, judgment shall be rendered in favor of defendant.
This case was tried to the court on the issue of liability. The court has considered the evidence and, for the reasons set forth in the decision filed concurrently herewith, judgment is rendered in favor of defendant. Court costs are assessed against plaintiffs. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.
FRED J. SHOEMAKER Judge
Page 1 2 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|