SENATE
HOUSE
JOINT
BILL STATUS
STATE LAW
REPORTS
EDUCATIONAL
CONTACT
home
home

West Virginia Legislative Claims Commission

Volume Number: 30
Category(s): STREETS AND HIGHWAYS
Opinion Issued June 15, 2015
YUSEF ALGHAWAZI
VS.
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
(CC-14-1432)
     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 2008 Toyota Yaris struck cinder blocks in the travel portion of Interstate 64/77 near Charleston, Kanawha County. Interstate 64/77 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 8:00 p.m. on September 20, 2014. The weather was clear and dry. At the time of the incident, Claimant was traveling on Interstate 64/77 from Charleston toward Montgomery, and approached Exit 96 toward Belle. Claimant testified that he was traveling at or below the speed limit prior to reaching the exit when his vehicle struck cinder blocks that were lying in the road. Claimant stated that he had been unable to see the blocks earlier because it was dark outside. The impact caused two of Claimant’s tires to flatten, damaged the rims and bumper, and altered the vehicle’s alignment. Claimant testified that as he was pulled to the side of the road awaiting help, he observed multiple other vehicles that had also struck the blocks and sustained damage. According to the crash report filed by the Kanawha County Sheriff’s Department, blocks were located in the middle and left lanes of southbound traffic, and also in the left northbound lane.
      As a result of this incident, Claimant’s vehicle sustained damage in the amount of $2,145.59.
      Claimant’s vehicle had liability insurance only at the time of the incident.
      It is the Claimant’s position that Respondent knew or should have known about the cinder blocks lying in the travel portion of Interstate 64/77 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. Claimant presented for the Court’s review a news report detailing multiple incidents of vehicles colliding with the debris around the time of the incident in question.
      The position of the Respondent is that it did not have actual or constructive notice of the cinder blocks on Interstate 64/77 at the time of the incident. Andy Estep, supervisor of Respondent’s Piedmont office covering the site of the incident, testified that he was not aware of any reports to his or any other office that debris was present in the roadway, nor was he aware of any reports of cleanup in that area following the incident. Kevin Quinlan, Claim Investigator for Respondent, testified that his investigation of the incident yielded no complaints of debris that had been filed with any pertinent office or agency. Mr. Quinlan further stated that it was possible an agency other than Respondent had cleaned up the debris without notifying Respondent of the incidents.
      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 notice of the cinder blocks lying in the travel portion of multiple lanes of Interstate 64/77 on the date in question. Respondent’s witnesses testified that no complaints or reports of debris had been received, and that Respondent was not otherwise notified of the condition and/or cleanup prior to or following the incident. While this Court is sympathetic to Claimant’s misfortune, it is nonetheless unable to make an award for damages when Respondent was unaware of the hazard.
      In view of the foregoing, the Court is of the opinion to and does deny this claim.
      Claim disallowed.
Summary:
     


If your search was unsuccessful, please try the full volume in Archived Decisions


Decisions | Home
This Web site is maintained by the West Virginia Legislature's Office of Reference & Information.  |  Terms of Use  |   Email WebmasterWebmaster   |   © 2024 West Virginia Legislature **