Glaser v. Department of Highways

West Virginia Court of Claims

Glaser v. Department of Highways

17 Ct. Cl. 102

CourtWest Virginia Court of Claims

DecidedFebruary 19, 1988

DocketCC-86-373

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 17 Ct. Cl. 102 (Glaser 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

Glaser v. Department of Highways, 17 Ct. Cl. 102 (W. Va. Super. Ct. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

[103]*103On October 9, 1984, the claimant was operating his vehicle on Interstate 70 at the Mt. de Chantal Ramp in Wheeling, West Virginia, when his vehicle struck the vehicle preceding him. He seeks to recover $600.00 for damages to his vehicle.

The claimant testified that he was travelling at a very low speed of approximately five miles per hour at the time of the accident. Formerly at the Washington Avenue on ramp and the Oglebay off ramp, there were signs that directed the through traffic in the westbound lane. The signs had been removed prior to claimant's accident. He alleges that the design of the interstate caused his accident. As of September 24 of that year, there had been seven accidents at this particular intersection. He contacted the Governor, who in turn contacted Fred VanKirk, the Acting Commissioner for respondent, who corresponded with the claimant. However, the situation has not been rectified.

Proximate cause is an essential element of a claimant's case, and claimant has the burden of establishing the proximate cause of an incident to justify recovery in any action based on negligence. Wolverton vs. Dept. of Highways, 9 Ct.Cl. 223 (1973). The Court has determined that the claimant's actions were the proximate cause of the accident. Accordingly, the Court is of the opinion to and does disallow the claim.

Claim disallowed.

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

PER CURIAM:

[103]*103On October 9, 1984, the claimant was operating his vehicle on Interstate 70 at the Mt. de Chantal Ramp in Wheeling, West Virginia, when his vehicle struck the vehicle preceding him. He seeks to recover $600.00 for damages to his vehicle.

The claimant testified that he was travelling at a very low speed of approximately five miles per hour at the time of the accident. Formerly at the Washington Avenue on ramp and the Oglebay off ramp, there were signs that directed the through traffic in the westbound lane. The signs had been removed prior to claimant's accident. He alleges that the design of the interstate caused his accident. As of September 24 of that year, there had been seven accidents at this particular intersection. He contacted the Governor, who in turn contacted Fred VanKirk, the Acting Commissioner for respondent, who corresponded with the claimant. However, the situation has not been rectified.

Proximate cause is an essential element of a claimant's case, and claimant has the burden of establishing the proximate cause of an incident to justify recovery in any action based on negligence. Wolverton vs. Dept. of Highways, 9 Ct.Cl. 223 (1973). The Court has determined that the claimant's actions were the proximate cause of the accident. Accordingly, the Court is of the opinion to and does disallow the claim.

Claim disallowed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 Ct. Cl. 102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glaser-v-department-of-highways-wvctcl-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack