| Volume Number: 30
Category(s): STREETS AND HIGHWAYS |
|
| Opinion Issued June 15, 2015 | |
| CINTHIA V. SEA | |
| VS. | |
| DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS | |
| (CC-14-1582) | |
|
Claimant appeared pro se. C. Brian Matko, Attorney at Law, for respondent. |
|
| PER CURIAM:
Claimant brought this action for vehicle damage which occurred when her 2013 Nissan Altima struck a metal object as she was driving on I-64 near Charleston, Kanawha County. I-64 is a road maintained by Respondent. The Court is of the opinion to deny this claim for the reasons more fully set forth below. The incident giving rise to this claim occurred at approximately 5:00 p.m. on October 13, 2014. Claimant testified that at the time of the incident, she was traveling on I-64 between mile markers 97 and 96.8 in rush hour traffic when she noticed debris in the roadway ahead of her. Claimant testified that she was unable to swerve, and her vehicle collided with the object. Claimant provided this Court with a photograph of the unidentified metal piece, which damaged the tires and wheels on her vehicle. As a result of this incident, Claimant’s vehicle sustained damage in the amount of $711.31. The position of Respondent is that it did not have actual or constructive notice of the object on I-64. Respondent presented no witnesses. 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, a claimant must prove that respondent had actual or constructive notice of the defect and a reasonable time to take corrective action. 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 object which Claimant’s vehicle struck on I-64. It is the Claimant’s burden to prove that Respondent had notice of the object in the roadway and failed to take corrective action, and the Court finds that Claimant has not met this burden. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence of negligence on the part of Respondent upon which to base an award. In view of the foregoing, the Court is of the opinion to and does deny this claim. Claim disallowed. |
|
| Summary: |
Webmaster | © 2024 West Virginia Legislature **