Lacey v. Ohio Dep't of Transp.

• Decision Date: 05 October 2022
• Docket Number: 2022-00415JD
• Citation: 2022 Ohio 3954
• Parties: ELIZABETH A. LACEY, etc., et al. Plaintiffs v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Defendant
• Court: Ohio Court of Claims

2022-Ohio-3954

ELIZABETH A. LACEY, etc., et al. Plaintiffs v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Defendant

No. 2022-00415JD

Court of Claims of Ohio

October 5, 2022

Sent to S.C. Reporter 11/4/22

Robert Van Schoyck, Magistrate Judge

ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

PATRICK E. SHEERAN, JUDGE

{¶1} On July 12, 2022, Defendant, Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6). Because the motion relies on evidence outside the complaint the court issued an order on August 5, 2022, converting the motion to one for summary judgment. Plaintiffs did not file a response to the motion. The motion is now before the court for a non-oral hearing pursuant to Civ.R. 56 and L.C.C.R. 4.

{¶2} Civ.R. 56(C) states, in part, as follows:

{¶3} "Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. No evidence or stipulation may be considered except as stated in this rule. A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears from the evidence or stipulation and only from the evidence or stipulation, that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that party being entitled to have the evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in the party's favor." See also Gilbert v. Summit Cty., 104 Ohio St.3d 660, 2004-Ohio-7108, 821 N.E.2d 564, ¶ 6, citing Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317, 364 N.E.2d 267 (1977).

{¶4} In the complaint, Plaintiffs relate that on July 22, 2021, they were travelling within a construction zone on Interstate Route 80 (I-80) in Williams County when their vehicle was struck from behind by a semi-tractor and trailer, causing them to be injured. Plaintiffs brought this action against both the Ohio Turnpike and Infrastructure Commission, which is no longer a party, and ODOT, claiming that one or both of them "were negligent in the design and implementation of the I-80 Construction Project, and, furthermore, failed to provide the motoring public, and specifically, Plaintiffs, with a safe roadway." Complaint, ¶ 17.

{¶5} ODOT argues that it has no legal responsibility for an accident that allegedly occurred as a result of the design, maintenance or repair of I-80, commonly referred to in this state as the Ohio Turnpike. ODOT cites the provisions of R.C. Chapter 5537 regarding the authority and powers of the Ohio Turnpike and Infrastructure Commission, which under R.C. 5537.04(A)(4) is subject to suit in the courts of common pleas. ODOT also provided the affidavit of Patrick McColley, PE, SI, attesting to the fact that ODOT was not involved in the construction project at issue in the complaint. McColley avers:

1. I am employed as the District Deputy Director of District Two for

...