Fidler v. Department of Highways

West Virginia Court of Claims

Fidler v. Department of Highways

14 Ct. Cl. 162

CourtWest Virginia Court of Claims

DecidedJune 30, 1982

DocketCC-82-50

StatusPublished

This text of 14 Ct. Cl. 162 (Fidler 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

Fidler v. Department of Highways, 14 Ct. Cl. 162 (W. Va. Super. Ct. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

On February 15, 1982, an automobile owned and driven by the claimant struck a pothole on Oakwood Road in Charleston, West Virginia, necessitating a realignment of the vehicle. The claimant asserts that the accident was caused by the respondent’s negligence, and seeks damages in the sum of $24.25.

The State is neither an insurer nor a guarantor of the safety of motorists travelling on its highways. Adkins v. Sims, 130 W.Va. 645 (1947); Lowe v. Department of Highways, 8 Ct.Cl. 210 (1971). A claimant must prove that the respondent failed to conform to a standard of “reasonable care and diligence. . . under all the circumstances.” Parsons v. State Road Commis[163]*163sion, 8 Ct.Cl. 35 (1969). In the instant case, the pothole was located on the claimant’s right-hand side of the pavement, and was filled with water. There is no evidence that the respondent had either actual or constructive notice of the pothole. See Davis v. Department of Highways, 12 Ct.Cl. 31 (1977); Swift v. Department of Highways, 10 Ct.Cl. 56 (1974). Accordingly, the evidence is not sufficient to establish negligence on the part of the respondent, and this claim must be denied.

Claim disallowed.

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

PER CURIAM:

On February 15, 1982, an automobile owned and driven by the claimant struck a pothole on Oakwood Road in Charleston, West Virginia, necessitating a realignment of the vehicle. The claimant asserts that the accident was caused by the respondent’s negligence, and seeks damages in the sum of $24.25.

The State is neither an insurer nor a guarantor of the safety of motorists travelling on its highways. Adkins v. Sims, 130 W.Va. 645 (1947); Lowe v. Department of Highways, 8 Ct.Cl. 210 (1971). A claimant must prove that the respondent failed to conform to a standard of “reasonable care and diligence. . . under all the circumstances.” Parsons v. State Road Commis[163]*163sion, 8 Ct.Cl. 35 (1969). In the instant case, the pothole was located on the claimant’s right-hand side of the pavement, and was filled with water. There is no evidence that the respondent had either actual or constructive notice of the pothole. See Davis v. Department of Highways, 12 Ct.Cl. 31 (1977); Swift v. Department of Highways, 10 Ct.Cl. 56 (1974). Accordingly, the evidence is not sufficient to establish negligence on the part of the respondent, and this claim must be denied.

Claim disallowed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 Ct. Cl. 162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fidler-v-department-of-highways-wvctcl-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack