Claimant appeared in person.
Andrew Lopez, Attorney at Law, for respondent.


On April 5, 1986, the claimant was operating his 1980 Oldsmobile in a
westerly direction on
West Virginia Secondary Route 42 between Midkiff and Mud River Road,
Lincoln County. At
this site, on the right-hand side, there is a section of the road which
has washed away. An
oncoming truck approached claimant's vehicle. The headlights from this
truck deterred claimant
from seeing the deteriorated section of the road. As a result,
claimant's vehicle left the road,
went over a bank, and struck a rock cliff. There was damage to the front
bumper, the right front
fender, and windshield of claimant's vehicle. Claimant seeks $20,000.00
for damage to the
vehicle and for personal injuries. Claimant alleges that respondent was
negligent for its failure to
have warning signs and guardrails at this location.

At the time of this incident it was approximately 9:30 p.m. and dark.
claimant was operating
his headlights on low beam. The road in question is a two-lane, blacktop
highway. The road
was dry.

Scott Carl Adkins, Jr. testified that he viewed the accident scene and
took photographs on
April 8, 1986. He stated "... the berm had gone off into the road, till
it met the road, and some
of the term was missing." He estimated that four to six inches of the
pavement area itself was

Mr. Jackie Weaver, road supervisor in Lincoln County for respondent at
the time of this
incident, testified that respondent tried several times to stop the
slipping of this particular road.
He further testified that respondent frequently placed paddle-like signs
up right along the edge of
this road.

Mr. Roger Lovejoy, county maintenance supervisor in Lincoln County for
respondent on April
5, 1986, testified that the road in question is a low priority or
secondary road. He stated that
prior to this incident, there were safety paddles in the break location
on this road.

The evidence in this case reveals that the road in question is a
secondary road. The respondent
had placed warning paddle signs on several occasions prior to this
incident which indicates that
respondent did take safety precautions for the travelling public.

The Court is of the opinion that negligence on the part of the
respondent has not been
established and, therefore, the Court denies this claim.

Claim disallowed.