| Volume Number: 30
Category(s): STREETS AND HIGHWAYS |
|
| Opinion Issued December 18, 2014 | |
| RONALD S. WILLIAMS AND STACIE LYNN WILLIAMS | |
| VS. | |
| DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS | |
| (CC-13-0230) | |
|
Claimants appeared pro se. C. Brian Matko, Attorney at Law, for Respondent. |
|
| PER CURIAM:
Claimants, Ronald and Stacie Williams, brought this action to recover damages which occurred when their 2006 Pontiac G6 struck a large hole while traveling along W. Va. Route 82 near Birch River, Nicholas County. W. Va. Route 82 is a public road maintained by Respondent. The Court is of the opinion to make an award in this claim for reasons more fully stated below. The facts giving rise to this claim occurred on April 10, 2013, at approximately 6:00 a.m. Claimant Ronald Williams testified that while driving to work along W. Va. Route 82, he encountered an oncoming vehicle that was close to his side of the roadway. Claimant veered to the right side of the lane in order to avoid making contact with the other vehicle and struck a large hole near the white fog line. Claimant Ronald Williams further testified that the roadway is heavily traveled and is quite narrow. As a result of the incident, Claimants’ vehicle sustained damage to its tires and rims in the amount of $400.00. Claimants carried liability insurance only on their vehicle. Respondent argues that it had neither actual nor constructive notice of the condition present on along W. Va. Route 82 on the date in question. Therefore, Respondent maintains that it cannot be held liable in this claim. 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). Therefore, 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). “Actual notice” is based on direct evidence known by a person or entity while “constructive notice” is defined as "[n]otice arising by presumption of law from the existence of facts and circumstances that a party had a duty to take notice of . . .; notice presumed by law to have been acquired by a person and thus imputed to that person." Mace v. Ford Motor Co., 221 W. Va. 198, 653 S.E.2d 660 (2007) (citing Black’s Law Dictionary at 1090 (8th Ed. 2004)). A party’s precise knowledge or state of mind concerning a situation often cannot be determined by direct evidence, but must instead be shown indirectly by circumstantial evidence. In the instant case, the Court is of the opinion that Respondent had constructive notice of the condition along W. Va. Route 82 on the date of the incident. Respondent’s witness testified that W. Va. Route 82 is well known to be heavily traveled with large trucks and the berm/shoulder has to be repaired properly. Respondent has a duty to inspect and maintain heavily traveled roadways more so than less traveled, lower priority, roadways. Therefore, the Court recommends that an award be made to the Claimants in this claim. Based on the foregoing, the Court is of the opinion to, and does hereby, grant an award in Claimants’ claim. Award $400.00. |
|
| Summary: |
Webmaster | © 2024 West Virginia Legislature **