| Volume Number: 30
Category(s): STREETS AND HIGHWAYS |
|
| Opinion Issued May 23, 2014 | |
| DONNA S. EDMONDSON | |
| VS. | |
| DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS | |
| (CC-13-0411) | |
|
Claimant appeared pro se. C. Brian Matko, Attorney at Law, for Respondent. |
|
| PER CURIAM:
Claimant, Donna Edmondson, brought this action to recover damages which occurred when her 2010 Nissan Murano struck road debris while traveling along Interstate 64 near Teays Valley, Putnam County. I-64 is a public road maintained by Respondent. The Court is of the opinion to deny an award in this claim for reasons more fully stated below. The facts giving rise to this claim occurred on June 29, 2013, at approximately 1:20 p.m. Claimant testified that while en route to picking her daughter up the vehicles in front of her began to move erratically to avoid an object in the roadway. Claimant was in the left lane, but the object was pushed from the right lane, and Claimant’s vehicle struck the object. Claimant stated that road conditions on the date of the incident were clear and dry. Claimant had never noticed while driving along this portion of Interstate in the past an inordinate amount of debris. As a result of this incident, Claimant’s vehicle sustained damage to it’s struts and control arms in the amount of $1,354.63. Claimant carried a $2,000.00 collision insurance deductible amount on the date of the incident. Respondent argues that it had neither actual nor constructive notice of the condition present on along I-64 on the date in question. Therefore, Respondent maintains that it cannot be held liable in this claim. The well-established principle of law in West Virginia is that the State is neither an insurer nor a guarantor of the safety of travelers upon its roads. Adkins v. Sims, 130 W.Va. 645, 46 S.E.2d 81 (1947). Therefore, in order to hold Respondent liable for road defects of this type, Claimant must prove that Respondent had actual or constructive notice of the defect and a reasonable amount of time to take corrective action. Pritt v. Dep’t of Highways, 16 Ct. Cl. 8 (1985); Chapman v. Dep’t of Highways, 16 Ct. Cl. 103 (1986). “Actual notice” is based on direct evidence known by a person or entity while “constructive notice” is defined as "[n]otice arising by presumption of law from the existence of facts and circumstances that a party had a duty to take notice of . . .; notice presumed by law to have been acquired by a person and thus imputed to that person." Mace v. Ford Motor Co., 221 W. Va. 198, 653 S.E.2d 660 (2007) (citing Black’s Law Dictionary at 1090 (8th Ed. 2004)). A party’s precise knowledge or state of mind concerning a situation often cannot be determined by direct evidence, but must instead be shown indirectly by circumstantial evidence. In the instant case, the Court is of the opinion that Respondent did not have actual or constructive notice of the debris that struck Claimant’s vehicle. Claimant failed to establish that Respondent was aware of the condition and that Respondent should have taken corrective action. Therefore, the Court cannot recommend an award in this claim. It is the opinion of the Court of Claims that the Claimant’s claim should be, and is hereby, denied. Claim disallowed. |
|
| Summary: |
Webmaster | © 2024 West Virginia Legislature **