Volume Number: 30
Category(s): STREETS AND HIGHWAYS |
|
Opinion Issued June 15, 2015 | |
THOMAS GIESEY | |
VS. | |
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS | |
(CC-14-1630) | |
Claimant appeared pro se. S. Anita Valentino, Attorney at Law, for Respondent. |
|
PER CURIAM:
Claimant brought this action for vehicle damage which occurred when his 2006 Jeep Wrangler struck a displaced portion of the roadway on Route 2/Huntington Road near Apple Grove, Mason County. Route 2/Huntington Road is a public road maintained by Respondent. The Court is of the opinion to make an award in this claim for the reasons more fully stated below. The incident giving rise to this claim occurred on October 6, 2014. At the time of the incident, Claimant was traveling south on Route 2/Huntington Road, and changed lanes in order to pass a semi-truck. As he passed the truck, a large chunk of the road emerged from underneath the truck and struck Claimant’s windshield, causing a crack. The crack increased in size over time, and eventually the windshield required replacement due to the damage. As a result of the incident, Claimant’s vehicle sustained damage in the amount of $295.25. Claimant’s collision insurance requires a $500.00 deductible amount; therefore, no limitation applies to the Claimant’s award. It is Claimant’s position that Respondent knew or should have known about the condition of the roadway on Route 2/Huntington Road which created a hazardous condition to the traveling public, and that Respondent was negligent in failing to properly maintain the road. The position of the Respondent is that it did not have actual or constructive notice of the condition on Route 2/Huntington Road at the time of the incident. 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, 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 had, at the least, constructive notice of the dangerous condition of the road on Route 2/Huntington Road at the time of the incident. Since the dislodged portion of the roadway created a hazard to the traveling public, the Court finds Respondent negligent. In view of the foregoing, it is the opinion of the Court of Claims that the Claimant should be awarded the sum of $295.25. Award of $295.25. |
|
Summary: |