| Volume Number: 30
Category(s): STREETS AND HIGHWAYS |
|
| Opinion Issued June 15, 2015 | |
| JACK F. HARDEN | |
| VS. | |
| DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS | |
| (CC-14-1498) | |
|
Claimant appeared pro se. C. Brian Matko, Attorney at Law, for respondent. |
|
| PER CURIAM:
Claimant brought this action for vehicle damage which occurred when his 2012 Toyota Prius struck a piece of aluminum in the roadway as he was driving on I-64 near Teays Valley, Putnam County. I-64 is a road maintained by respondent. The Court is of the opinion to deny this claim for the reasons more fully set forth below. The incident giving rise to this claim occurred at approximately 7:00 a.m. on September 17, 2014. The speed limit on this section of I-64 is seventy miles per hour. Claimant testified that at the time of the incident, he was traveling east on I-64 between mile markers 38.6 and 38.8, near the Teays Valley exit. As he was driving in the left lane at approximately seventy miles per hour, he noticed a large piece of metal laying in the travel portion of the lane ahead of him. Claimant stated that due to cars on one side and a wall on the other side of his lane, he was unable to swerve and his vehicle struck the metal. Shortly thereafter, upon arrival at his destination, Claimant became aware of damage to the front of his vehicle, near the site of impact. As a result of this incident, Claimant’s vehicle sustained damage to its front end in the amount of $1,412.50. Claimant’s collision insurance deductible at the time of the incident was $500.00. The position of the Respondent is that it did not have actual or constructive notice of the piece of metal on I-64. Respondent presented no witnesses. 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). In order to hold respondent liable for road defects of this type, a claimant must prove that respondent had actual or constructive notice of the defect and a reasonable time to take corrective action. Chapman v. Dep’t of Highways, 16 Ct. Cl. 103 (1986). In the instant case, the Court is of the opinion that Respondent did not have notice of the piece of metal which Claimant’s vehicle struck on I-64. It is Claimant’s burden to prove that Respondent had notice of the object in the roadway and failed to take corrective action, and the Court finds that Claimant has not met this burden. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence of negligence on the part of Respondent upon which to base an award. In view of the foregoing, the Court is of the opinion to and does deny this claim. Claim disallowed. |
|
| Summary: |
Webmaster | © 2024 West Virginia Legislature **