Romanini v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2009 Ohio 3713 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 7/9/2009)

• Decision Date: 09 July 2009
• Docket Number: No. 2005-09553.,2005-09553.
• Citation: Romanini v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2009 Ohio 3713 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 7/9/2009), 2009 Ohio 3713, No. 2005-09553. (Ohio Ct. Cl. Jul 09, 2009)
• Parties: Neil V. Romanini, Plaintiff, v. Ohio Department of Transportation, Defendant.
• Court: Ohio Court of Claims

Page 1

2009 Ohio 3713

Neil V. Romanini, Plaintiff, v. Ohio Department of Transportation, Defendant.

No. 2005-09553.

Court of Claims of Ohio.

Filed July 9, 2009.

Eric A. Walker, Jennifer A. Adair, A ssistant Attorneys General, 150 East Gay Street, 18th Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130.

Gary M. Petti, One Cascade Plaza, Suite 2210, Akron, Ohio 44308-1135.

DECISION

J. CRAIG WRIGHT, Judge.

{¶ 1} Plaintiff brought this action alleging a claim of negligence. The issues of liability and damages were bifurcated and the case proceeded to trial on the issue of liability.

{¶ 2} This case arises as a result of an accident that occurred when plaintiff and a group of friends were traveling to Lodi, Ohio to race their motorcycles. The group was traveling southbound on Interstate 71 (I-71) near the city of Strongsville when the accident occurred. That portion of the roadway was undergoing construction; two of the four southbound lanes were closed off by a concrete barrier for resurfacing work and two lanes were left open for travel. Plaintiff testified that he was riding near the rear of the group, traveling at approximately 55 to 60 mph, when his vehicle suddenly struck a defect in the roadway. He alleges that the defect ran parallel to his direction of travel, that it was approximately seven feet long, four to five inches wide, and three inches deep. According to plaintiff, when the front tire of his motorcycle struck the defect and dropped into the depression, the handlebars began to swing rapidly back and forth and struck the gas tank, causing him to lose control of the vehicle and be thrown onto the roadway. Plaintiff contends that defendant, the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), was negligent in its maintenance and repair of the roadway.

{¶ 3} In order to prevail upon a claim of negligence, plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant owed him a duty, that defendant's acts or omissions resulted in a breach of that duty, and that the breach proximately caused his injuries. Armstrong v. Best Buy Company, Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79, 81, 2003-Ohio-2573, citing Menifee v. Ohio Welding Products, Inc. (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 75, 77. Although the state is not an insurer of the safety of its highways, it has a duty to maintain its highways in a reasonably safe condition for the motoring public. Knickel v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. (1976), 49 Ohio App.2d 335, 339; Rhodus v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. (1990), 67 Ohio App.3d 723.

{¶ 4} Michael Morveck, Vice President of Kenmore Construction, testified regarding the I-71 project where the accident occurred. Morveck testified that his company was a subcontractor on the project, that it was responsible for the milling and paving work, but that it had no duty to inspect the traveled portion of the roadway. He and his employees did not observe the defect that caused plaintiff's accident. However, based upon the photographic evidence that plaintiff presented (Exhibits 1-8), Morveck opined that a separation of the pavement such as that depicted by the evidence could occur over a period of days, overnight, or in a matter of hours, depending upon a variety of circumstances. Morveck noted that traffic was very heavy at the area where the incident occurred, and that approximately 10,550 vehicles passed through the area per hour. According to Morveck, that volume of traffic would significantly impact road conditions and potential separations of the pavement such as the one encountered by plaintiff. Morveck further testified that if the defect had been patched at some time prior to the accident, the patching material could come loose at any time.

{¶ 5} Plaintiff also presented the testimony of his brother, Tony Romanini, and that of Gary Garbasik, both of whom were traveling in a pickup truck in front of the motorcyclists when the accident occurred. Romanini testified that he observed plaintiff's accident in his side-view mirror. He stated that the front tire of plaintiff's motorcycle "almost disappeared" into the defect and that he inspected the area after the accident. Romanini agreed that the defect was approximately the size described by plaintiff. Garbasik testified that he was the passenger in the pickup truck and that he was not observing the motorcyclists at the time of the accident. He stated that he stayed with plaintiff after the accident and did not closely observe the defect but that, from his point of view approximately 20 feet away, the defect was "obvious." Both witnesses stated that there were no signs of broken asphalt or patching material near the area of the accident.

{¶ 6} Defendant presented the testimony of Kirk Gegick, ODOT's project engineer for the I-71 construction. According to Gegick, Ruhlin Construction Company was the general contractor for the project and was responsible for monitoring and maintenance of the traveled portion of the roadway for the duration of the construction. Gegick testified that the speed limit for the construction zone was lowered from 60 mph to 50 mph for safety purposes. He also testified that the surface being replaced in the area was at least 30 years old and that the construction work...