Swofford v. Department of Highways

West Virginia Court of Claims

Swofford v. Department of Highways

13 Ct. Cl. 259

CourtWest Virginia Court of Claims

DecidedOctober 6, 1980

DocketCC-79-174

StatusPublished

This text of 13 Ct. Cl. 259 (Swofford 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

Swofford v. Department of Highways, 13 Ct. Cl. 259 (W. Va. Super. Ct. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

GARDEN, JUDGE:

At approximately 7:30 p.m. on March 16, 1979, the claimant was driving south on W.Va. Route 2 north of Parkersburg when the right front tire struck a pothole, damaging the tire and wheel. The claimant seeks to recover damages in the sum of $135.20.

The State is neither the insurer nor the guarantor of the safety of motorists traveling on its highways. Adkins v. Sims, 130 W.Va. 645, 46 S.E.2d 81 (1947). For the respondent to be held liable for damage caused by a pothole, it must be proven that the respondent had either actual or constructive knowledge of the hole and a reasonable amount of time to take suitable corrective action. Davis v. Dept. of Highways, 11 Ct.Cl. 150 (1977). The claimant did not meet that burden of proof, and, therefore, this claim must be denied.

Claim disallowed.

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

GARDEN, JUDGE:

At approximately 7:30 p.m. on March 16, 1979, the claimant was driving south on W.Va. Route 2 north of Parkersburg when the right front tire struck a pothole, damaging the tire and wheel. The claimant seeks to recover damages in the sum of $135.20.

The State is neither the insurer nor the guarantor of the safety of motorists traveling on its highways. Adkins v. Sims, 130 W.Va. 645, 46 S.E.2d 81 (1947). For the respondent to be held liable for damage caused by a pothole, it must be proven that the respondent had either actual or constructive knowledge of the hole and a reasonable amount of time to take suitable corrective action. Davis v. Dept. of Highways, 11 Ct.Cl. 150 (1977). The claimant did not meet that burden of proof, and, therefore, this claim must be denied.

Claim disallowed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 Ct. Cl. 259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/swofford-v-department-of-highways-wvctcl-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack