OPINION ISSUED MAY 12, 1987

ROBERT KEVIN GILLISPIE AND CAROLYN KAY GILLISPIE
VS.
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS

(CC-86-140)

Claimants appeared in person.
Andrew Lopez, Attorney at Law, for respondent.
PER CURIAM:

On February 18, 1986, at approximately 11:15 a.m. claimant Robert K.
Gillispie was
operating his Chevy S-10 pickup truck on Cow Creek Road, Putnam County,
when his vehicle
struck a pothole. The claimants seek $10,000.00 for damages to the
vehicle and for physical
injuries to Carolyn Kay Gillispie. The Court, on its own motion, amended
the style of the claim
to reflect the proper party respondent, the Department of Highways.
Claimants have received
$6,700.00 from their insurance carrier. The insurance policy has a
$500.00 deductible.
Claimants incurred $605.29 in medical bills for physical injuries
sustained by claimant Carolyn
Kay Gillispie.

Claimant Robert Gillispie was travelling on Cow Creek Road to pick up
his cousin. He was
proceeding at approximately 25 mph. It was sunny, but the road was wet
due to a previous
snowfall. He was accompanied in the vehicle by his wife, Carolyn Kay
Gillispie.

Claimant Robert Gillispie testified that at the time of the accident
his vehicle had just rounded a
curve. The hole was filled with water, and when his vehicle struck the
hole, it went into a small
skid, landed in a ditch and tipped over. The road is wide enough for two
cars to pass.
Homer Gillispie, father of Robert Gillispie, testified that he visited
the scene of the accident
approximately 20 minutes after it occurred. He stated that the hole was
"approximately 16 to 18
inches across and

the opposite way it was close to 5 feet across." He also indicated that
the hole was from 16 to
18 inches deep.

Claimant Carolyn Kay Gillispie testified that she was with her husband
on the day of this
incident. As a result of the accident, she sustained injuries to her
back, and was treated by Dr.
Curry on February 18, 1986. Dr. Curry prescribed pain pills.
Subsequently, she was examined
by another doctor who also checked her back on two occasions. She stated
that she still
experiences back pain.

Joseph Gillispie, cousin of claimant Robert Gillispie, testified that
the hole had been present for
over a month. He had not notified the respondent of the presence of the
hole.


Zenith Porter, an employee of respondent, testified that Cow Creek Road
has a Route 40
designation. Porter worked at the Hurricane Substation at the time of
this accident, where he
took complaints about this road. Mr. Porter stated that prior to
February 18, 1986, he had not
received any complaints. He said that, "We was just coming out of a snow
storm," and there
was a truck dispatched down in that area to plow the roads. He also
stated that the truck
drivers report hazards either by telephone or in person when they return
to the substation.
While the State does not insure the safety of travellers on its
highways, respondent does owe a
duty of reasonable care and diligence in the maintenance of the
highways. Although there was no
direct evidence that the respondent had actual notice of the evidence of
this defect, the Court is
of the opinion that it did have constructive notice. The size of the
pothole is indicative of its
presence for some time prior to the date of this incident. See: Stone
vs. Dept. of Highways, 12
Ct.Cl. 259 (1979) and Miller vs. Dept. of Highways, CC-85-12 (1985). The
Court hereby
makes an award to claimant Robert Gillispie in the amount of $500.00 for
the deductible and
$1,200.00 to Carolyn K. Gillispie for her physical injuries.


Award of $500.00 to Robert Kevin Gillispie.
ward of $1,200.00 to Carolyn Kay Gillispie.




REFERENCES


ï Bridges
ï Building Contracts
ï Contracts - See also Building Contracts
ï Damages
ï Drains and Sewers
ï Falling Rocks - See also Landslides
ï Independent Contractors
ï Interest
ï Landslides - See also Falling Rocks
ï Leases
ï Limitation of Actions
ï Negligence - See also Streets and Highways
ï Notice
ï Office Equipment and Supplies
ï Pedestrians
ï Prisons and Prisoners
ï Public Employees
ï Releases
ï State Agencies
ï Streets and Highways - See also Falling Rocks; Landslides; Negligence
ï Trees and Timber
ï Trespass
ï W.VA. University


BRIDGES

KAREN SUE BISSETT VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-86-154)
Where claimant is aware of the existence of the defect in a bridge and
she backed into the hole
causing damage to her vehicle, the Court denied the claim based upon the
doctrine of
comparative negligence 162

JAMES CHARLES, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF BILLY R. CHARLES
DECEASED VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND BEN H. ALLISON,
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF DAVID W. ALLISON, DECEASED VS.
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-83-356) & (CC-84-68)
The Court denied a claim wherein two individuals were killed when their
vehicle went off a
bridge and turned over into a creek as there were no eyewitnesses and
the factors which caused
the accident have not been determined; the Court will not make an award
upon speculation. 162

COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE CO., AS SUBROGEE OF CHARLES WILLIAM
MOONEY, INDIVIDUALLY VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-85-355)
The Court denied a claim for damage to the windshield of a vehicle as
concrete allegedly fell
from a bridge dropping onto the vehicle. The Court determined that a
finding of negligence by
respondent would require speculation and the Court cannot speculate. 162

CARL A. DANIELS VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-83-274)
The Court made an award to claimant for damage to real property which
occurred after a
bridge was constructed by respondent and water was caused to be directed
onto claimant's
property.162

FONSO W. DOTSON AND SARAH E. DOTSON VS. DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHWAYS (CC-85-382)
The Court made an award for damage to vehicle which struck a hole on a
bridge as the
respondent was negligent in failing to properly maintain the bridge. A
steel plate which had
covered the hole to protect the public was missing on the day of the
incident.
REXELL C. FREEMAN AND JOYCE FREEMAN VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
(CC-84-244)
Claimants' vehicle was damaged when a steel plate that had been place
over a hole on a
bridge was struck by a truck and whirled into air and spun underneath
claimants' vehicle
damaging the same. The Court denied the claim as claimant repaired the
vehicle himself and
experienced no monetary loss as the result of the accident.
JACK AND VERA MCMILLAN VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-85-277)
The Court made an award for damage to claimants' vehicle when the
vehicle struck a hole on a
bridge that went clear through the bridge. The Court determined that a
steel plate which had
been covering the hole was knocked off but it was the responsibility of
the respondent to
ascertain that the hole.
JACK AND VERA MCMILLAN VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-85-277)
The Court made an award for damage to claimants' vehicle when the
vehicle struck a hole on a
bridge that went clear through the bridge. The Court determined that a
steel plate which had
been covering the hole was knocked off but it was the responsibility of
the respondent to
ascertain that the hole remained covered by the steel plate.
PAULA H. MEREDITH VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-85-446)
A claim for personal injuries which occurred when a wooden plank of a
bridge broke as
claimant walked over the bridge was awarded by the Court as the
respondent had constructive
notice of the condition due to the obvious deterioration of the bridge.
ROSEMARY NICOLA VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-86-341)
Where the claimant sustained personal injuries when she fell on a
deteriorated portion of a
bridge, the Court made an award for her injuries as the State was
negligent for failing to discover
and correct such a hazard which a casual inspection would have revealed.
ELMER PACK & ANICE DAILEY VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-84-130)
The Court denied a claim for personal injuries to claimants when the
vehicle left the road and
went into a creek as a bridge had been removed. The Court determined
that the claimants failed
to prove that any negligence of the respondent caused the accident.

PHILIP SKEEN VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-86-264)
Where two boards of a bridge broke and damaged claimant's vehicle, the
Court made an
award as respondent's failure to discover the condition of the bridge
constituted negligence.

RAYMOND L. SMITH VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-85-320)
The Court made an award for damage to claimant's vehicle when the
vehicle struck a
depressed area on a bridge caused by roto-milling. The Court that
respondent was negligent in
failing to warn the travelling public of a hazardous condition on an
interstate bridge.
BUILDING CONTRACTS

AMERICAN BRIDGE DIVISION OF UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, A
DELAWARE CORPORATION, AND AMERICAN BRIDGE DIVISION OF UNITED
STATES STEEL CORPORATION, A CORPORATION, ON BEHALF OF JOHN B.
CONOMOS, INC., A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION VS. DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHWAYS (CC-82-166)
A claim for the placement of an intermediate coat of paint upon a
bridge was denied by the
Court as the claimant's subcontractor failed to contact an expert about
the paint system prior to
bidding the job, and was therefore not fully informed of the paint
necessary to meet the
specifications and provisions of the contract.
BANKERS POCAHONTAS COAL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND W. B. SWOPE,
INDIVIDUALLY VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-83-159)
The Court made an award to claimant for the cost of materials used in
the construction of a
low water bridge which was necessitated by the action of the respondent
in posting a bridge
which it was later determined was not owned by the Department of
Highways. The Court
determined that the claimant was entitled to an award.
CARL M. GEUPEL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. VS. DEPARTMENT
HIGHWAYS (CC-82-200)
Claimant experienced delays during construction when various slides
occurred on the project
and respondent was required to redesign portions of the project. The
delays resulted in damages
to the claimant which were stipulated by the parties and the Court made
an award. ..
HUGHES BECHTOL, INC. VS. BOARD OF REGENTS (CC-81-450)
A contract which provided an agreement to arbitrate any all claims,
disputes and other matters
in question between the Contractor and the Owner was upheld by the Court
when it sustained a
motion for summary judgement based upon an award granted to the claimant
through arbitration
proceedings.
MELLON-STUART COMPANY AND KIRBY ELECTRIC COMPANY VS. BOARD
OF REGENTS (CC-82-14)
The Court made awards to claimants in the construction of a
multipurpose physical education
facility at Marshall University where the Court determined that the
respondent failed to fulfill its
obligation to coordinate the work of multiple prime contractors.
MELLON-STUART COMPANY AND KIRBY ELECTRIC COMPANY VS. BOARD
OF REGENTS (CC-82-14)
The Court held that the respondent is responsible for any negligent
acts and omissions of its
architect in connection with the project for the construction of a
multipurpose physical education
facility at Marshall University and the Court made awards to the
claimants for such acts.
MELLON-STUART COMPANY AND KIRBY ELECTRIC COMPANY VS. BOARD
OF REGENTS (CC-82-14)
The Court made an award to claimants in the construction of a
multipurpose physical
education facility at Marshall University where the Court determined
that the claimants are
entitled to recover costs attributal to extra work caused by concealed
conditions and design
defects but not in the total amounts claimed. The Court made a
determination as to the awards
to be made to the claimants.
MELLON-STUART COMPANY AND KIRBY ELECTRIC COMPANY VS. BOARD
OF REGENTS (CC-82-14)
In a claim for delay on a project due to failure of the respondent
owner of the project where
utility lines were to be removed and these were not removed prior to the
construction of the
project, the Court determined that a delay did occur for which the
claimant should be
reimbursed its extra expenses.

P.R.C. ENGINEERING INC. VS. BOARD OF REGENTS (CC-83- 190)
The Court made an award in accordance with an agreement entered into by
the parties for
overhead cost increases which occurred in the construction of the PRT at
West Virginia
University, a facility of the respondent.
VECELLIO & GROGAN, INC. VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-83-151)
Claimant contractor was assessed a penalty for failing to comply with
required embankment
compaction standards on an embankment layer on a project. The Court
determined that the
penalty was proper and denied the claim.

CONTRACTS - See also Building Contracts
AMERICAN OFFICE SYSTEMS, INC. VS. DIVISION OF VOCATIONAL
REHABILITATION (CC-85-226)
An advisory opinion was issued by the Court indicating that the
respondent is legally obligated
to pay the claimant for the rent due under a lease agreement between the
parties.
AMERICAN TELETRONICS CORPORATION VS. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
(CC-85-362)
The Court determined that damage to the telephone system was not the
responsibility of the
respondent State agency in accordance with the terms of the maintenance
agreement between
the parties.
B-K DYNAMICS, INC. VS. TAX DEPARTMENT (CC-86-14)
The respondent State agency failed to pay the claimant for services
rendered under a contract
but the respondent did not have sufficient funds within its
appropriation for that particular fiscal
year to pay for the services rendered. The Court denied the claim based
upon Airkem Sales and
Service, et al. vs. Department of Mental Health, 8 Ct. Cl. 180 (1971).
CODEX CORPORATION VS. BOARD OF REGENTS (CC-85-159)
The Court determined that no breach of contract occurred where a lease
agreement between
the parties was void ab initio.

YEAGER, INCORPORATED AND YEAGER FORD SALES, INC. VS. DEPARTMENT
OF HIGHWAYS (CC-84-88)
The Court determined liability on the part of the respondent for damage
to claimant's property.
The parties had a written right of way agreement which provided for
restoration of claimant's
property, including the buildings, to as near original
(pre-construction) condition as possible.

DAMAGES

AMERICAN BRIDGE DIVISION OF UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, A
DELAWARE CORPORATION, AND AMERICAN BRIDGE DIVISION OF UNITED
STATES STEEL CORPORATION, A CORPORATION, ON BEHALF OF JOHN B.
CONOMOS, INC., A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION VS. DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHWAYS (CC-82-166)
A claim for liquidated damages assessed the claimant were denied by the
claimant were denied
by the Court as the delay was caused by claimant's delay in fabrication
and shop painting of the
structural steel, not due to actions of the respondent.
HUGHES-BECHTOL, INC. VS. BOARD OF REGENTS (CC-81-450)
The Court issued an opinion in accordance with a settlement between the
parties for payment
to the claimant for a dispute arising under a contract for construction
of the Henderson Center at
Marshall University, a facility of the respondent. The Court granted an
award to the claimant. The
Court determined that the proceeds of two life insurance policies paid
for by the State and one
with the Public Employees Insurance were not collateral sources as well
as the amount being
right received from the disability and retirement fund. The contribution
by the decedent during
his employment as a trooper constitute a collateral source. The Court
made an award to the
claimant for shock and mental anguish which she suffered and an award to
claimant as
administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband.
VECELLIO & GROGAN, INC. VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-83-151)
The Court denied a claim for the amount of an assessed penalty against
the claimant where the
Court determined that the contractor did not fulfill the terms of the
contract with regard to
embankment compaction standards and thus upheld the penalty assessed by
the respondent.
YEAGER, INCORPORATED AND YEAGER FORD SALES, INC. VS. DEPARTMENT
OF HIGHWAYS (CC-84-88)
The Court did not consider an item of damage which it determined to be
too speculative to be
considered and the estimate of cost was reduced by this amount in the
award made by the
Court.

DRAINS AND SEWERS - See also Water and Watercourses

TERESA R. ALTOMARE AND SAMUEL ALTOMARE VS. DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHWAYS (CC-77-111)
The Court determined that as there was no evidence of negligence on the
part of the
respondent which was the proximate cause of the accident the Court
denied a claim based upon
negligence for failing to maintain a drainage ditch in proper condition
and for failing to install a
guard rail between the road and the drainage ditch.

HENRY BURGER AND GERALDINE BURGER VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
(CC-82-181)
Where the proximate cause of property damage to claimants' property was
the excessive
rainfall that occurred and water from a broken water main which
saturated the hillside and
caused a slide, the Court denied the claim.

JIMMIE A. AND EULA R. CURRENCE AND LOREN AND RELLA CURRENCE VS.
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS. (CC-84-116 & CC-84-117)
The claimants sustained personal injuries in an accident wherein a
vehicle, coming in the lane
opposite the claimants, hydroplaned, came across onto claimant's lane
and struck their vehicle,
causing an accident. The Court determined liability on the part of the
respondent for the pool of
water which caused the accident as it created a hazard for the
travelling public.
MARY KATHRYN ESTES VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-82-213)
The Court denied a claim for water damage to claimant's property as the
Court determined
that claimant's property is in a natural drainage area and there was no
evidence of any
negligence on the part of the respondent.

THELMA L. JAMISON VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-84-255)
The Court determined that respondent was liable in part for damage to
claimant's property due
to a blocked culvert which caused water to enter onto claimant's
property.

NINA G. JONES VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-83-126)
The Court made an award for personal injuries to the claimant which
occurred when she ran
onto water on the highway, hydroplaned on the water and her vehicle went
down over a bank
and struck a tree causing physical injuries and damages to the claimant.
The Court finds
respondent negligent for failure of the respondent to take satisfactory
corrective action in the
care of a culvert problem of which the respondent had knowledge).
JOSEPH MULLINS AND DORA MULLINS VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
(CC-85-209)
The Court denied a claim for personal injuries to the claimant which
occurred in an accident on
a State road where the record established that respondent was negligent
in failing to maintain the
drainage of water on the road but under the doctrine of comparative
negligence the negligence of
the claimant in travelling the road at night, in the rain, and known to
him to be in disrepair was
equal to or greater than the negligence of the respondent in its failure
to maintain the area.

JACK D. PORTER AND JACQUELINE L. PORTER CAUDILL VS. DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHWAYS (CC-82-305)
A claim for damage to real property from the flow of surface water was
denied by the Court
as no evidence was presented of the amount of monetary damages to the
claimants' property.

JOHN H. SUTPHIN AND NANCY SUTPHIN VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
(CC-84-275)
An award for damage to real estate which occurred when the respondent
failed to properly
maintain ditch lines adjacent to claimants' property was made by the
Court as the surface water
from the highway prevented claimants from the full use of their land.


FALLING ROCKS - See also Landslides

WILLIAM H. CLAY VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-84-219)
Where there was no evidence that the respondent knew or should have
known of an unusually
dangerous condition, rocks extending from the berm onto the edge of the
roadway, the Court
denied a claim for damage to a vehicle which hit the rock slide.
ARTHUR COBURN VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-85-177)
The Court has held that the unexplained falling of a rock bolder onto a
highway without a
positive showing that respondent knew or should have known of a
dangerous condition posing
injury to person or property is insufficient to justify an award. The
Court denied a claim where
the vehicle ran over a rock which had rolled out into the road.)

A.E. QUEEN AND PAULINE QUEEN VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
(CC-85-151)
Rock fall claim - lack of notice to respondent - claim denied.
LOVA M. STOUT AND M. WOOD STOUT VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
(CC-78-29)
A claim for physical injuries and property damage which resulted when
claimants' vehicle
collided with a large bolder which rolled out in front of them was
denied by the Court as the
unexplained falling of a rock or bolder onto a highway without a
positive showing that
respondent knew or should have known of a dangerous condition posing
injury to person or
property is insufficient to justify an award.
UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, AS SUBROGEE OF
CHALMER HARLESS VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-84-337)
The Court denied a claim for damage to a vehicle which struck a rock in
the road where there
was no proof that the State had notice of the defect in the road.

LARRY J. WALLEN VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-86-120)
A claim for damage to a vehicle which occurred when rocks fell from a
cliff along the highway
was denied by the Court as the respondent had constructed concrete
barriers between the base
of the cliff and the berm of the highways to remedy the dangerous
condition of falling rocks. The
Court was unable to find negligence on the part of the respondent.

INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS

OLIVE CRADDOCK VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-84-286)
The Court denied a claim for damage to a vehicle where the record
established that an
independent contractor was responsible for the work on the bridge.
SHARON NICKELS VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-84-317)
The respondent, Department of Highways, cannot be held liable for the
negligence, if any, of
an independent contractor. The Court denied a claim where the claimant
alleged that
construction on a roadway caused her to become involved in an accident.

INTEREST

CAPITOL BUSINESS EQUIPMENT, INC. VS. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
(CC-87-28)
Where claimant requested payment for an original invoice and interest
on that invoice, the
Court made an award for the amount of the invoice but denied the
interest based upon West
Virginia Code §14-2-12.
THE LAWHEAD PRESS, INC. VS. GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF COMMUNITY AND
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT (CC-86-149)
A claim for interest on a printing contract was denied by the Court
based upon W.Va. Code
§14-2-12 and the fact that there was no provision for interest in the
purchase order awarded to
the claimant.

LANDSLIDES - See also Falling Rocks

0.L. WESTFALL AND REBECCA WESTFALL VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
(CC-80-144)
The Court made an award to the claimant for property damage which
damage was caused by
a slide on the property. The Court determined that respondent's actions
in the reconstruction of
the road above the property aggravated the condition already existing to
precipitate the slide on
the property. The Court made an award to the claimants.
The Court in calculating an award to be made for property damages
deducted the value of the
property after the damage from the estimated value of the property prior
to the damage to the
property.

LEASE

R.J. CAREY COMPANY, INC. VS. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (CC-84-209)
Cancellation provision of lease is sufficient to deny rent beyond the
period of cancellation.

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS

ROBERT B. MORRISON VS. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES (CC-85-206)
The Court dismissed a claim wherein the two-year period of the statute
of limitations was
applicable as the claimant failed to file for loss of wages in the
two-year period.

CLETON E. MYERS VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-85-52)
The Court dismissed claimant's action for loss of tools which were
burglarized from
respondent's dump truck as claimant failed to file the claim within the
two-year period of statute
of limitations.
CHARLES G. PLANTZ VS. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (CC-84-271 and
CC-84-326)
Two claims filed by an inmate of West Virginia Penitentiary for failure
of the respondent to
safeguard property acquired for the operation of a radio and T.VS.
repair shop and
woodworking shop were denied by the Court as it does not have
jurisdiction over claims which
are not filed within the time specified by the applicable statute of
limitations.
HAROLD M. STUMPP VS. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (CC-86-246)
Where the Court made an award for overtime which claimant was required
to work for the
respondent, the Court applied the statute of limitations to that period
of time for which claimant
claimed loss of pay for more than two years prior to the filing of his
claim.

NEGLIGENCE - See also Motor Vehicles; Streets and Highways

CAPITOL BUSINESS EQUIPMENT, INC. VS. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND
ADMINISTRATION (CC-87-27)
The Court made an award for the original invoice as the respondent
admitted the amount and
the validity of that obligation, but the Court denied the additional
amount of interest based upon
West Virginia Code.

WALLACE M. COGAR VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-86-22)
Claimant's tools were stolen from respondent's pickup truck while the
vehicle was parked on
respondent's parking lot. Claimant is required to have the tools with
him at all times in his
employment. The Court made an award but depreciated the value of the
tools by ten percent.

WALTER J. DAVIS VS.DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-85-30)
As the claimant established that the truck from which cinders chips of
limestone flew onto
claimant's vehicle damaging the same, was owned and operated by the
respondent the Court is
of the opinion that it's driver was operating the truck negligently
under the prevailing conditions
and made an award to the claimant for damage to his vehicle.
REXELL C. FREEMAN AND JOYCE FREEMAN VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
(CC-84-244)
The Court held that the placement of an unsecured plate on a bridge was
negligence on the
part of the respondent. However, the claimant has been reimbursed by his
insurance company
for the estimated repair costs of the vehicle and the Court denied the
claim.

NINA G. JONES VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-83-126)
Although the Court determined that the respondent was negligent in its
failure to correct a
frequent flooding problem on a highway the Court
also determined that the claimant was guilty of
negligence in her failure to keep a proper look out ahead and for
operating her vehicle at a
speed in excess of a reasonable speed under the conditions then and
there existing. Therefore,
the Court reduced the damages to the claimant upon the doctrine of
comparative negligence.
BUFORD E. MARKER VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-86-1)
The Court denied a claim for damage to a vehicle when the vehicle
dropped off the berm in
Coonskin Park, Kanawha County, as there was no negligence established on
the part of the
respondent.
NADINE J. MATTHEW VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-85-172)
When claimant's vehicle was damaged when it struck a pothole, the Court
held that although
the respondent may have been negligent, the negligence of claimant's
husband was equal to or
greater than that of the respondent as he had notice of the defects in
the road.
SANDRA MCELHENIE. PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF
MARVIN MCELHENIE, DECEASED, VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-85-36)
The Court denied a claim for a wrongful death wherein claimant
contended that the respondent
was negligent in failing to properly place grade signs indicating a
downgrade on a State highway
and the Court determined that negligence on the part of the respondent
had not been
established.
HARLEY NANCE AND GENEVIEVE NANCE VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
(CC-85-184)
The Court denied a claim for damage to a vehicle on the basis that
although the respondent
may have been negligent, the negligence of the claimant was equal to or
greater than that of the
respondent. The claimant frequently travelled this route prior to the
incident and should have
been aware of the general state of disrepair of the bridge and taken the
necessary precautions.
JOE SCARDINA VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-84-250)
The Court denied a claim for damage to a vehicle which occurred when
claimant's wife pulled
the vehicle off to the berm and backed the car into a growth of weeds
where the remains of a
metal light pole damaged the vehicle. There was no negligence on the
part of the respondent.
JERRY ALLEN TACKETT VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-86-86)
The Court denied a claim for damage to a vehicle which struck a pothole
as the negligence of
the claimant was equal to or greater than that of the respondent.
EUGENE 0. WORKMAN VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-85-154)
An employee of the respondent had his glasses broken when he slipped
and fell on a truck
while preparing to go out on snow removal work. The Court denied the
claim for loss of the
eyeglasses as there was no evidence that the respondent was negligent.

NOTICE

CHARLES EDWARD ALLEN VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-85-32)
Pothole claim - lack of notice.
KIMBERLY D. BACK VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-86-153)
Claimant failed to prove that the respondent had of notice of the defect
in question which
caused the damage to claimant's vehicle; therefore, the Court will deny
the claim.
DELILAH LYNN CHAPMAN VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-85-310)
A claim for personal injuries and medical expenses was denied by the
Court as the evidence
revealed that the respondent performed maintenance on the section of
road where the incident
occurred and the respondent lacked notice of this particular hole which
required maintenance at
the time of this incident.
KAREN COLEMAN VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-86-94)
The Court denied a claim for damage to a vehicle as the claimant failed
to prove notice, either
actual or constructive, of the defect in question.
JOYCE ANN COLLINS VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-86-141)
A claim for damage to a vehicle which occurred when the vehicle struck a
pothole was denied
as there was no proof of notice, either actual or constructive, on the
part of the respondent of
the defect in question.
WILLIAM LEE COOGLE, JR. VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-86-343)
Question of actual or constructive notice - claim denied.
LARRY FARLEY AND LINDA FARLEY VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
(CC-85-271)
Lack of notice claim.
KENNETH E. FRANK VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-85-198)
A claim was denied for damages to a vehicle where the claimant failed to
prove actual or
constructive notice on the part of the respondent State agency.
ROBERT KEVIN GILLISPIE AND CAROLYN KAY GILLISPIE VS. DEPARTMENT
OF HIGHWAYS (CC-86-14)
The size of a pothole is indicative of its presence in a highway and the
Court will apply
constructive notice of the defect in the highway. The Court made an
award to claimants who
sustained damages as the result of striking a large hole in a State road.
STEVEN D. GOOD VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-84-283)
Pothole claim - Lack of notice on the part of the respondent.
RETTIE LOUISE HAMON VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-86-31)
Where the size of the pothole in the road was indicative that it had
been in existence for a
substantial period of time prior to the date of the incident, the Court
made an award for the
damages to the vehicle which struck the hole.
CURTIS HARLESS VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-86-152)
A claim for damage to a vehicle which occurred when the vehicle struck a
pothole was denied.
The claimant failed to prove notice, either actual or constructive, of
the defect in question.
DELTA W. HARRAH AND EVA KAY HARRAH VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
(CC-86-85)
The Court denied a claim for damage to a vehicle which struck a hole in
the road where the
respondent did not have proof of notice, either actual or constructive,
of the defect.

DUBOIS JORDAN VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-86-67)
Claimant was made an award for damage to his vehicle which struck a
pothole. The Court
determined that the size of the pothole was indicative of the fact that
it could not have developed
overnight and, therefore, was a hazard to the travelling public.
PAULINE R. KAPLAN AND ALLEN KAPLAN VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
(CC-84-339)
Pothole claim - Lack of real or constructive notice on the part of the
respondent.
MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
(CC-85-191)
Lack of notice on the part of the respondent claim denied.
KENNETH AND JANET MOUNTS VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-85-40)
Pothole claim - Lack of actual or constructive notice on the part of the
respondent.
JOYCE PRIDDY VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-86-19)
The Court made an award for damage to a vehicle which struck a pothole
where the Court
determined that the pothole was of sufficient size that the respondent
should have discovered
and repaired the defect.
RONALD G. PRITT AND PEGGY J. PRITT VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
(CC-85-76)
Pothole claim - Lack of actual or constructive notice of the defect in
the road.
TRUDY PROTZMAN VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-85-376)
Actual or constructive notice case.
ROBERT W. RECTENWALD AND JEANNE E. RECTENWALD VS. DEPARTMENT
OF HIGHWAYS (CC-85-230)
Lack of notice to the respondent - claim denied.
REUBEN E. ROBERTSON AND BRENDA G. ROBERTSON VS. DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHWAYS (CC-86-156)
The Court denied a claim for damage to a vehicle which struck a pothole
where the claimants
failed to prove the respondent had actual or constructive notice of the
defect.
BRADY C. SINGLETON VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-86-25)
Where no evidence was presented to show that the respondent had actual
or constructive
notice of the existence of the hole struck by claimant's vehicle and
that the road where the
incident occurred is a State maintained highway, the Court must deny the
claim.
FRANK SPENCE AND MARGARET E. SPENCE VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
(CC-85-224)
Lack of notice on part of respondent - claim denied.
PAUL R. THOMAS VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-86-92)
The Court denied a claim for damage to a vehicle which occurred when the
blacktop gave way
with the vehicle causing it to strike the road's surface. The Court
determined that the hazardous
condition appeared suddenly without prior actual or constructive notice
to the respondent.
R. MIKE VERES VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-85-80)
A claim for damage to a boat trailer was denied by the Court as no
evidence of actual or
constructive notice of the hazard which caused the damage was
established.
OFFICE EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES

JOE L. SMITH, JR., INC., D/B/A BIGGS-JOHNSTON- WITHROW VS.
DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY (CC-85-377)
Claimant printing company printed forms for the respondent which were
rejected. The
respondent returned only a portion of the forms to the claimant for
which the Claimant received
credit from its subcontractor. The Court made an award to the claimant
for the defective forms
as the respondent used the forms. However, the Court reduced the amount
claimed by 10
percent as the forms were defective.

PEDESTRIANS

SHELBY B. MELVIN VS. BOARD OF REGENTS (CC-82-308)
The doctrine of comparative negligence was applied where the Court
determined that
respondent failed to maintain the sidewalk in a proper manner and that
the claimant herself was
negligent in failing to maintain an adequate outlook on the sidewalk
where she was walking.

HOWARD A. SNYDER VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-80-351)
The principle that the State is neither an insurer nor a guarantor of
the safety of travellers on its
highways has been extended to pedestrians. The Court has held that where
a person has
travelled across an area and then been injured upon returning, failure
to exercise reasonable care
and to maintain proper lookout was the proximate cause of the injury.
This principle was applied
in a claim where the claimant fell on steps in a roadside park.

CONSTANCE J. TILLEY VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-85-246)
A claim for personal injuries to the claimant which occurred when she
stepped between two
boards of a walkway at the New River Gorge overlook was denied by the
Court as the claimant
was negligent when she failed to look at the boardwalk where she was
walking.

PRISONS AND PRISONERS

FARMERS & MECHANICS MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF W.VA.
AND MUTUAL PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION OF W.VA. VS. DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN SERVICES AND DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (CC-79-30)
Where claimant alleged that the respondents negligently and recklessly
placed an individual into
an institution which did not have the proper facilities to prevent
escape and the individual did
escape, the Court denied the claim as the record in the claim does not
substantiate the allegation
of knowledge on the part of the personnel in charge of the institution.
CONSTANCE KESNER, INDIVIDUALLY AND CONSTANCE KESNER, AS
ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF PHILP S. KESNER, DECEASED VS.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (CC-81-188)
The Court made an award to the claimant individually and to the claimant
as administratrix of
her husband's estate where the respondent conceded liability and
acknowledged that there
probably would not have been death and injuries had there not been
negligence on the part of at
least two correction officers when an escape was made by inmates at the
West Virginia
Penitentiary in Moundsville, West Virginia.
LAWRENCE D. JENKINS VS. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (CC-84-192)
The Court denied a claim for damage to a vehicle which occurred when two
escapees from the
West Virginia Industrial Home for Youth stole claimants unlocked vehicle
which contained the
keys to the car as the Court determined that no evidence had been
presented to show that the
respondent acted in a negligent manner.
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES

JAMES A. COGHLIN, JR. AND ALVIN E. GARDNER VS. DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHWAYS (CC-85-138)
Annual leave time for provisional employees must be taken during the
period of time in which
the employee is employed. The Court denied several claims for annual
leave time for provisional
employees based upon the Civil Service Rules and Regulations.
JEFFREY ALAN RICHARD VS. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (CC-87-37)
The Court made an award to claimant for salary compensation due him
under an Order by the
West Virginia Education Employees Grievance Board which directed payment
by the respondent.
Respondent was unable to pay claimant as this was considered a
retroactive salary increase.
HAROLD M. STUMPP VS. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (CC-86-246)
While employed as a correctional officer, claimant was required to
report ten minutes before
each shift that he worked. A grievance with the Civil Service Commission
determined that
claimant was entitled to overtime pay. The Court made an award for
overtime to which he was
entitled.
TOOLEY ET AL. VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-85-139)
These are provisional employee claims wherein annual leave time was
denied the provisional
employees and the Court upheld the Civil Service Rules and Regulations.

RELEASES

TAMMY JO HALL ARTHUR VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-79-568)
A general release signed by the claimant in a prior case is sufficient
to release respondent.
EUGENE R. EDWARDS, JR. AND MARTHA E. EDWARDS VS. DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHWAYS (CC-80-298)
A general release executed by the claimants is sufficient to release
respondent.

STATE AGENCIES

MARY ELIZABETH BINDER VS. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (CC-86-295)
The Court denied a claim for reimbursement of tuition for the cost of
renewing a teaching
certificate where the respondent did not have sufficient funds within
the proper fiscal year to pay
such reimbursement.
BRENT BOGGS VS. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (CC-85-343)
Where the claimant proved through various records presented that he was
entitled to overtime
compensation in accordance with Civil Service regulations, the Court
made an award for the
overtime.
NAOMI A. CLARK VS. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (CC-85-290)
Claimant alleged that respondent was negligent in its maintenance of the
state park. Claimant's
vehicle was vandalized when she and a companion camped overnight at the
park. The Court
denied the claim as there was no evidence of negligence on the part of
the respondent.

ARTHUR L. CORNETTE, JR. VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-85-367)
The Court denied a claim for damage to a vehicle which occurred when the
vehicle slid on ice
in a parking structure in Beckley, West Virginia as the definition of
"State agency" specifically
excluded municipalities as to jurisdiction of this Court. The parking
structure was maintained by
the City of Beckley.

HAMILTON BUSINESS SYSTEMS VS. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (CC-85-175)
The Court denied a claim for loss of equipment rented by the respondent
in accordance with
the terms of the agreement as there was no evidence of any negligence or
willful misconduct on
the part of the respondent in the loss.

HERMAN F. LAWHORN VS. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS (CC-85-389)
The Court denied a claim for repayment of an overpayment of benefits to
the claimant as the
Court held that the claimant received a benefit sum to which he was not
entitled.

THEODORE D. MOORE, III VS. SUPREME COURT (CC-84-242)
The Court denied a claim for the payment of witness fees and mileage
costs incurred by the
claimant as the Court of Claims does not have jurisdiction over the
matter in question.

GAIL PHILLIPS VS. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY (CC-85-129)
A claim for damages to claimant's mobile home which was rented to
another individual was
awarded by the Court when members of the Department of Public Safety
damaged the mobile
home with canisters of tear gas in an attempt to apprehend another
individual.
VICTOR SOLOMON VS. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (D-736)
A claim for damages incident to the refusal of respondent to grant
claimant a permit for a landfill
in Monongalia County was denied by the Court as the claimant did not
prove discrimination by
a preponderance of the evidence.
TRI-CITY WELDING SUPPLY COMPANY VS. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
(CC-84-335)
A claim for cylinders loaned to West Virginia Industrial School for Boys
at Grafton was denied
as the facts presented did not support the claimant's claim for the
missing cylinders.
DOROTHY WORRELL, SERVING AS NEXT FRIEND FOR JOHN WORRELL, HER
NATURAL SON VS. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (CC-85-49)
The document which claimant signed upon his confinement at Lakin State
Hospital absolving
the respondent facility of liability for his personal belongings, was
upheld by the Court to deny
the claim for personal articles which were missing at the institution.
STREETS AND
HIGHWAYS - See also Falling Rocks; Landslide; Motor Vehicles; Negligence

AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY, AS SUBROGEE OF ROBERT W. DAVIS, AND
ROBERT W. DAVIS, INDIVIDUALLY VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
(CC-85-215)
The Court made an award for damages to claimant's insured vehicle where
the Court
determined that the respondent was negligent in failing to properly
maintain a construction area
where a ditch had been dug across the road.

JAMES W. BASHAM, JR. VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-84-59)
The Court denied a claim for damage to a vehicle which occurred when
the claimant
encountered ice and his vehicle flipped and skidded. Before the
respondent may be held liable,
there must be evidence that the respondent knew or should have known of
the existence of ice
on the highway.

J. W. BAUER VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-85-358)
The Court denied a claim for damage to a vehicle which occurred when
claimant was
proceeding in the wrong lane of traffic and struck the curb of the
median. The accident was not
caused by negligence on the part of respondent.
JAY L. BOLYARD VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-86-195)
Where the size of a pothole in the road is indicative of its presence
for a substantial period of
time prior to the date of the incident, the Court will make an award to
the claimant for the
damages sustained by claimant's vehicle.
PHIL CALISE VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-85-28)
Claimant sustained personal injury and property damage to his bicycle
when he failed to see a
sewer grate on the highway and the bicycle wheel dropped into the grate
causing the claimant to
fall. The Court denied the claim as it could determine no negligence on
the part of the
respondent.
WILLIAM E. CARR VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-86-41)
Where no evidence was introduced at the hearing to establish knowledge
on the part of the
respondent on the condition of a metal expansion joint which claimant's
vehicle struck, the Court
will deny the claim.
VONLEY COLE, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF KAREN RENEE COLE VS.
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-82-292)
The Court denied a claim for claimant's decedent where the allegation
was that the respondent
failed to maintain the berm of the highway in a reasonably safe
condition. The Court could not
conclude that claimant's decedent was forced onto the berm or otherwise
necessarily used it.
The claim was denied.

WILLIAM K. CUNNINGHAM AND TRESEA J. CUNNINGHAM VS. DEPARTMENT
OF HIGHWAYS (CC-86-113)
The Court denied a claim for damage to a vehicle which claimant alleged
occurred when
aggregate being placed on the road struck his windshield. There was
nothing in the record to
show that respondent had notice of a dangerous condition on the highway.
C. P. FARLEY AND REBECCA L. FARLEY VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
(CC-85-123)
Pothole claim - lack of notice to the respondent.
FRED THOMAS GUIDI VS. BOARD OF REGENTS (CC-86-219)
The Court made an award for damage to claimant's vehicle which struck a
manhole cover
located on property of the respondent even though the manhole cover was
to be maintained by
the city of Morgantown. The award was for one half of the loss.
HELEN HERRON VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-85-165)
The Court denied a claim for personal injury which occurred when
claimant's vehicle dropped
off the paved portion of the road into the ditchline, claimant then lost
control of the vehicle which
landed against a porch of a nearby residence. The Court was unable to
determine negligence on
the part of the respondent in the maintenance of the road or the berm.
KNOTTS, GIANFRANCESCO, & MAYS VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
(CC-81-358a-c)
Where claimants failed to establish that respondent was under a duty to
erect a warning sign or
maintain a guardrail at the accident scene, the Court denied the claim.
Generally, the posting of
road markers and the erection of guardrails is discretionary.
FRIEDA LEGGETT AND WILLIAM LEGGETT VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
(CC-82-223)
Claimant alleged that barrels and warning signs placed on an interstate
to indicate construction
were negligently place and caused claimant to have an accident. The
Court determined that the
barrels and warning signs were place in accordance with respondent's
regulations and denied
the claim.
CHESTER LEWIS VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-86-81)
The Court made an award to the claimant for damage to a vehicle which
occurred when it
struck a large pothole. The Court held that the respondent owes a duty
of reasonable care and
diligence in the maintenance of the highways and the respondent had
constructive notice of this
defect in the road.
SANDRA MCELHENIE, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF
MARVIN MCELHENIE, DECEASED, VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-85-36)
Where the record in the claim revealed that claimant's decedent was
unfamiliar with the section
of highway on which the accident occurred and decedent lost control of
his vehicle on a
down-grade, the Court denied the claim as an award would require
speculation on the part of
the Court as to the cause of the accident.
TOMMY C. MILLER VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-85-12)
The court made an award for damages to a vehicle which occurred when the
vehicle struck a
pothole as the size of the pothole is indicative of its presence for a
substantial period of tine prior
to the date of the incident, thus establishing constructive notice of
the defect.

JOHN I. MOORE AND CHARLENE MOORE VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
(CC-85-153)
The claimant struck a large hole in an interstate and claimed damaged to
her vehicle. The Court
denied the claim as the evidence in the record indicated that the
dangerous condition appeared
suddenly and that the respondent moved promptly to take safety
precautions as soon as it
became aware of the problem.
KAREN S. MURRAY AND DANIEL J. MURRAY VS. DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHWAYS (CC-85-181)
The Court denied a claim for damage to a vehicle which occurred when the
vehicle slid on mud
in the roadway. The Court determined that the claimant had observed
respondent's crew
working and was aware of the presence of mud on the road.
DEBORAH D. PADGETT VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-86-63)
Damage to a vehicle which occurred when a loose grate flipped up against
the vehicle was
denied by the Court as the record reflects no notice being given
respondent of the condition of
the grate prior to claimant's incident.

DORSEL D. PARSONS VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-82-141)
Claimant alleged that he lost control of his vehicle and went off the
berm over an embankment.
The reason for the loss of control was that a vehicle was coming at him
with its bright lights on.
Claimant alleged that respondent was negligent for failing to maintain
the berm in proper
condition and failing to install a guard rail. The Court denied the
claim as there was no evidence
of negligence on the part of the respondent.
ROYAL RESOURCES CORPORATION VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
(CC-86-23)
Where the Court was unable to discern from the testimony presented who
maintained the drain
at the location of the accident, the Court was unable to grant an award.

RICHARD SAUNDERS, D/B/A RICK'S USED CARS VS. DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHWAYS (CC-85-331)
The Court denied a claim wherein the claimant alleged that his property
was no longer usable
due to a ditch line placed by the respondent. The Court determined that
the ditch line was
necessary to remedy drainage and the claimant made no effort to submit
proposals so that a
mutual agreeable solution could be found to provide access to his
property.

DOMINIC & MARY L. STAFFILENO VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
(CC-83-212)
A claim for personal injury and property damages which occurred when
claimants' vehicle slid
in gravel on the highway was denied by the Court as the quantity of
debris on the highway from
the ditch-cleaning operation does not appear to have been excessive nor
such as to have
imposed a duty upon the respondent to warn motorists of its presence.

DENISE W. SUTTON AND LINDA A. SUTTON VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
(CC-85-268)
The Court denied a claim for damage to a vehicle where the evidence in
the record indicated
that the defective condition on the interstate appeared suddenly and
that respondent promptly
moved to repair the defect as soon as it became award of the problem.

THOMAS TREADWAY VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-86-11)
A claim for damage to a vehicle which occurred when the vehicle struck a
piece of ice and
went into a ditch was denied by the Court even though the claimant made
a complaint to the
respondent. The complaint was made on a day other than the day of the
incident and the road
conditions were different on this particular day.

TAXATION

RONALD L. HUNT VS. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES (CC-86-398)
The Court made an award for overpayment of the Privilege Tax in
registering a vehicle where
the error was on the part of the respondent State agency.
SUSAN MANN VS. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES (CC-86-36)
The Court denied a claim for failure of the Department of Human Services
to process an
entitlement to an income tax refund from claimant's ex-husband as there
was insufficient proof
that such refund was to be paid to the ex-husband.

TREES AND TIMBER

FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP COMPANY, AS SUBROGEE OF MARGARET
GERRITSEN AND ADRIAN GERRITSEN VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
(CC-85-216)
The Court denied a claim for damage to a vehicle from a tree limb which
fell onto the vehicle as
the Court determined that the accident was not the result of any
negligence on the part of the
respondent but was due to a storm.
DONNIE LEE MCIE AND BETTY J. JEFFRIES, ADMIN. OF THE ESTATE OF EARL
WILLIAM JEFFRIES, DEC. VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-82-159a& Court
denied a claim for wrongful death and a claim for personal injuries due
to an accident in which a
tree fell upon claimant's vehicle as the Court determined that the tree
was not close enough to
respondent's right of way so as to pose a hazard which should have been
apparent to the
respondent.

TRESPASS

LEO DUNN AND EDITH DUNN VS. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS (CC-82-257)
The Court denied a claim for damage to a fence along claimants' property
which was removed
by respondent's employees pursuant to a Notice of Removal of an
Obstruction issued by the
respondent. The record did not establish that respondent was guilty of
trespassing.


W.VA.UNIVERSITY - See Board of Regents

ANDREW CHIMEZIE IMEGI VS. BOARD OF REGENTS (CC-85-6)
A claim by a student resident at West Virginia University for his
belongings was denied by the
Court as there was no evidence of responsibility of the University for
safe keeping of claimant's
property nor of any negligence or willful misconduct on the part of the
University.
KAREY LYNN WELLS VS. BOARD OF REGENTS (CC-85-253)
A claim for loss of property from a dormitory was denied as the Court
lacks Jurisdiction in a
proceeding which may be maintained against the State in the courts of
the State. The State
agency has insurance coverage for such an incident.
PETER E. WU VS. BOARD OF REGENTS (CC-84-318)
The Court made an award for loss of property which occurred due to a
power surge in a
dormitory of the respondent as the responsibility of the electrical
system is that of the
respondent.