Priestley v. Department of Highways

West Virginia Court of Claims

Priestley v. Department of Highways

13 Ct. Cl. 36

CourtWest Virginia Court of Claims

DecidedSeptember 20, 1979

DocketCC-79-34

StatusPublished

This text of 13 Ct. Cl. 36 (Priestley 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

Priestley v. Department of Highways, 13 Ct. Cl. 36 (W. Va. Super. Ct. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

WALLACE, JUDGE:

The claimants, Charles E. Priestley, Jr. and Penny A. Priestley, filed this claim in the amount of $207.86 against the respondent for damages to their 1977 Monte Carlo automobile which occurred on January 1, 1979, at approximately 6:30-7:00 p.m. The scene of the accident was Big Tyler Road in Cross Lanes, West Virginia. It was dark, and it was raining. The claimant, Penny A. Priestley, while driving the automobile, struck a hole in her lane of traffic about ten inches from the right berm. During her testimony, she stated that she travelled this road about once every two weeks and that she had seen holes in the pavement on previous occasions.

The law of West Virginia is well establishing that the State is neither an insurer nor a guarantor of the safety of persons travelling on its highways. Adkins vs. Sims, 130 W. Va. 645, 46 S.E.2d 81 (1947). “As the State is not an insurer of the safety of those travelling on the public roads, anyone injured or who sustains damage must prove that the State has been negligent in order to render the State liable.” Hanson v. State Road Comm’n., 8 Ct. Cl. 100 (1970). The existence of a defect in the road does not establish negligence per se. Bodo v. Dept. of Highways, 11 Ct. Cl. 179 (1977); Light v. Dept. of Highways, 12 Ct. Cl. 61 (1977).

[37]*37The record does not establish negligence on the part of the respondent, and, accordingly, the Court disallows the claim.

Claim disallowed.

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

WALLACE, JUDGE:

The claimants, Charles E. Priestley, Jr. and Penny A. Priestley, filed this claim in the amount of $207.86 against the respondent for damages to their 1977 Monte Carlo automobile which occurred on January 1, 1979, at approximately 6:30-7:00 p.m. The scene of the accident was Big Tyler Road in Cross Lanes, West Virginia. It was dark, and it was raining. The claimant, Penny A. Priestley, while driving the automobile, struck a hole in her lane of traffic about ten inches from the right berm. During her testimony, she stated that she travelled this road about once every two weeks and that she had seen holes in the pavement on previous occasions.

The law of West Virginia is well establishing that the State is neither an insurer nor a guarantor of the safety of persons travelling on its highways. Adkins vs. Sims, 130 W. Va. 645, 46 S.E.2d 81 (1947). “As the State is not an insurer of the safety of those travelling on the public roads, anyone injured or who sustains damage must prove that the State has been negligent in order to render the State liable.” Hanson v. State Road Comm’n., 8 Ct. Cl. 100 (1970). The existence of a defect in the road does not establish negligence per se. Bodo v. Dept. of Highways, 11 Ct. Cl. 179 (1977); Light v. Dept. of Highways, 12 Ct. Cl. 61 (1977).

[37]*37The record does not establish negligence on the part of the respondent, and, accordingly, the Court disallows the claim.

Claim disallowed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 Ct. Cl. 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/priestley-v-department-of-highways-wvctcl-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack