Case ID: wv-ct-cl_5/html/0011-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MERRIMAN S. SMITH, Judge. ROBERT L. BLAND, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(No. 656-S
    JAMES M. WEAVER, Claimant, v. STATE ROAD COMMISSION, Respondent.
    Opinion filed January 13, 1949
    
   MERRIMAN S. SMITH, Judge.

On Sepember 16, 1948, James Weaver, the claimant, was driving his 1941 Plymouth coupe across a state-owned steel structure bridge with wooden floor, in Rowlesburg, Preston county, West Virginia, and while crossing said bridge a loose floor board tilted up, striking the left rear fender and running board, damaging it to the extent of $16.00. While the state does not guarantee, nor is it responsible for, the absolute safety of the highways throughout its borders, as respects bridges the Legislature has imposed a duty upon the state road commission to keep them in a reasonably safe condition for the regular flow of traffic.

As soon as this accident was reported to R. O. Hart, maintenance superintendent for district four, which includes Preston county, he dispatched a crew to make the necessary repairs.

When the floor planks of a bridge become loose and unsafe for public travel the condition should be remedied, and to wait until an accident damages the property of an individual before making repairs does not meet with the statutory requirement, and the state should make reparation for such loss or damage sustained.

The state road commission concurred in the claim, it was approved by the attorney general, and a majority of this court hereby makes an award in the sum of sixteen dollars ($16.00) in favor of claimant James M. Weaver, and recommends payment thereof to the Legislature.

ROBERT L. BLAND, Judge,

dissenting.

I am unable to view this claim as my colleagues see it. I perceive nothing in the record prepared by respondent and know of no law that would warrant an appropriation of the public revenues for the payment of the claim. All questions of contributory negligence are ignored. The award made by majority of the court amounts to a mere ratification of what the state road commissioner and his employes think should be done in the case. There has been no sufficient investigation of the facts by the members of this court in whom, alone, authority is vested by statute to investigate the merits of’ all claims asserted against the state. I respectfully dissent.