Gomez v. Cleveland, 2012 Ohio 1642

Gomez, plaintiff-appellant, sued City of Cleveland for negligent roadway maintenance after hitting a pothole on a city street on Aug. 23, 2008.
City allegedly had actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition but failed to warn travelers.
City moved for summary judgment on immunity and lack of notice; Gomez opposed with her affidavit and a photo.
City later supplemented with an Hurtt affidavit stating no notices or complaints were found in records for about seven weeks before the incident.
Trial court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact.
Appellate court affirmed, holding Gomez’s photo did not create a genuine issue as to actual or constructive notice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether city had actual or constructive notice of the pothole	Gomez argues evidence shows notice via records and surrounding construction.	Cleveland contends records showed no notice in the relevant period.	No genuine issue; city lacked notice.
Whether Gomez’s photo creates a genuine issue of fact	Photograph shows construction and potential hazardous conditions.	Photo is dated after the incident and irrelevant to notice.	Photo does not raise a genuine issue; summary judgment proper.

Cater v. Cleveland, 83 Ohio St.3d 24 (Ohio Sup. Ct. 1998) (municipal duty to keep streets free from nuisance; standard of care)
Franks v. Lopez, 69 Ohio St.3d 345 (Ohio Sup. Ct. 1994) (duty to keep roads free from nuisance; evidentiary considerations for notice)
Beebe v. Toledo, 168 Ohio St. 203 (Ohio Sup. Ct. 1958) (constructive notice concepts in nuisance road contexts)
Nanak v. Columbus, 121 Ohio App.3d 83 (Ohio App.3d 1997) (requirements to show constructive notice under nuisance standard)