| Volume Number: 30
Category(s): STREETS AND HIGHWAYS |
|
| Opinion Issued June 15, 2015 | |
| JONATHAN CALVERT | |
| VS. | |
| DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS | |
| (CC-13-0611) | |
|
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 2010 Toyota Camry struck large pieces of glass in the travel portion of the road on Route 50 near Clarksburg, Harrison County. Route 50 is a public road maintained by Respondent. The Court is of the opinion to deny this claim for the reasons more fully stated below. The incident giving rise to this claim occurred at approximately 6:00 p.m. on November 7, 2013. The weather was clear and dry, and the sky was just becoming dark. At the time of the incident, Claimant was traveling eastbound on Route 50 to his home when he encountered shards of glass on the roadway fully covering both lanes for approximately two miles. Claimant testified that some of the pieces were a half-inch thick, and that he and several other motorists traveling at the same time were forced to slow their vehicles considerably while driving over the glass. Sometime after passing over the debris, prior to his arrival at his home, Claimant telephoned Respondent’s local office to report the hazard. By the time Claimant reached his destination, all four of his tires were flat and contained many pieces of glass, which required replacement of the tires. As a result of this incident, Claimant’ vehicle sustained damage in the amount of $477.00. Claimant’s insurance declarations sheet indicates that his collision deductible is $500.00. It is the Claimant’s position that Respondent knew or should have known about the glass in the travel portion of Route 50 which created a hazardous condition to the traveling public, and that Respondent was negligent in failing to properly maintain the road and provide proper warning to the traveling public of a known hazardous condition prior to the incident. The position of the Respondent is that it did not have actual or constructive notice of the glass in the road at the time of the incident, prior to Claimant’s and other telephone calls received around that time. Dave Adams, transportation crew supervisor for Respondent, testified that his agency received a call about glass in the road at approximately 6:30 p.m. on the date in question. Because the workers’ shift had ended at 3:30 p.m., Respondent’s employees left their homes, traveled to the garage to retrieve the cleaning equipment, and proceeded to the site of the hazard to sweep the glass off the road. Mr. Adams testified that this process took approximately one hour following their receipt of notice of the glass. Mr. Adams presented as evidence a written daily work report which contained notations of calls about the glass and the workers’ actions following the calls, all of which were noted to have occurred between 6:30 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. 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, 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). In the instant case, the Court is of the opinion that Respondent did not have actual or constructive notice of the glass on the travel portion of the roadway on Route 50 prior to Claimant’s incident. Respondent’s witness testified that the agency received notice of the hazard at approximately 6:30 p.m., at which time road workers were mobilized to clear the glass from the roadway. This Court finds that Respondent acted quickly upon notification of the hazard and immediately attempted to correct the problem. The Court further finds that it appears Claimant’s call to Respondent was one of the first - if not the first - notification to Respondent of the adverse road condition. While this Court is sympathetic to Claimant’s position and damages, it simply cannot find that Respondent was negligent in these circumstances, and is, therefore, precluded from granting an award to Claimant. 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 **