OPINION ISSUED JANUARY 30, 1987

PETER E. WU

VS.

BOARD OF REGENTS

(CC-84-318)

Claimant appeared in person.
Robert D. Pollitt, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

On October 25, 1984, the claimant was residing in the Towers Dormitory
at West Virginia
University, Morgantown, Monongalia County. At approximately 9:00 p.m.,
as a result of a surge
in the power system in the building, several items of personal property
of the claimant became in
operative. He seeks $165.00 as compensation for same.

The claimant testified that at the time of this incident the lights in
his room became brighter and
then they dimmed, and that there was not an electrical storm at the
time. He stated that this
electrical outage might also have occurred the day before, that it
occurred on October 25, 1984,
and that to his knowledge, it never occurred again. Prior to this event,
he did not report it to
anyone at the University.

Carl Marcucci, another resident of the Towers at the time of this
incident in 1984, stated that
he observed this power disruption about an hour before claimant's
experience in his own room.
He then went to the room of the claimant. He noticed that the lights in
the claimant's room
became very bright. The music on the stereo was distorted. He noticed

a light which first smoked and then sent out. Marcucci did not report
this either.

Thomas Dale Matthews. a building inspector for the Housing Division of
the West virginia
University, said that he had no knowledge of any complaints prior to
this incident. A work
request was written on November 1st and at that time the maintenance
person discovered that
some outlets die not have power in them. The respondent introduced
correspondence from
Stephen Showers, Director, Housing and Residence Life at West Virginia
University, to
Chancellor Ginsberg. The letter explained that a failure in the building
wiring, as the result of
aging, causing outlets in certain rooms to receive 220 volts of
electricity instead of 110.

It is the opinion of the court that the responsibility for the
electrical system is that of the
respondent; therefore, the claimant is entitled to an award for losses
which he sustained when the
electrical system went awry. For these reasons, the court makes an award
to the claimant in the
amount of $165.00.

Award of $165.00.

___________