Dunbrack v. Department of Highways

West Virginia Court of Claims

Dunbrack v. Department of Highways

11 Ct. Cl. 137

CourtWest Virginia Court of Claims

DecidedJune 1, 1976

DocketNo. D-1015

StatusPublished

This text of 11 Ct. Cl. 137 (Dunbrack v. Department of Highways) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering West Virginia Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dunbrack v. Department of Highways, 11 Ct. Cl. 137 (W. Va. Super. Ct. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

JONES, JUDGE:

On or about August 25, 1975, the claimant, Everett L. Dunbrack, an employee of the respondent, Department of Highways, reported for work and parked his 1975 Monte Carlo Chevrolet automobile in the parking lot of the District Headquarters garage at Marlinton. During that day, other employees of the respondent engaged in spray-painting road equipment located on the parking lot. The respondent admits that the claimant’s automobile sustained some damage from the paint spray, but denies that the claimant’s estimate of damages in the amount of $412.00 is fair and reasonable. The estimate to “Refinish Complete” in that amount was obtained from a Marlinton body shop.

There being such a wide difference of oiinion as to the amount of damages, the Court granted the respondent’s motion for an inspection of the vehicle. Based on the'testimony erf the claimant, argument of counsel for the respondent and the Court’s own inspection, it is the opinion of the Court that the claimant is entitled to recover in the amount of $200.00, and an award in that amount is hereby made.

Award of $200.00.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JONES, JUDGE:

On or about August 25, 1975, the claimant, Everett L. Dunbrack, an employee of the respondent, Department of Highways, reported for work and parked his 1975 Monte Carlo Chevrolet automobile in the parking lot of the District Headquarters garage at Marlinton. During that day, other employees of the respondent engaged in spray-painting road equipment located on the parking lot. The respondent admits that the claimant’s automobile sustained some damage from the paint spray, but denies that the claimant’s estimate of damages in the amount of $412.00 is fair and reasonable. The estimate to “Refinish Complete” in that amount was obtained from a Marlinton body shop.

There being such a wide difference of oiinion as to the amount of damages, the Court granted the respondent’s motion for an inspection of the vehicle. Based on the'testimony erf the claimant, argument of counsel for the respondent and the Court’s own inspection, it is the opinion of the Court that the claimant is entitled to recover in the amount of $200.00, and an award in that amount is hereby made.

Award of $200.00.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 Ct. Cl. 137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunbrack-v-department-of-highways-wvctcl-1976.