Case ID: wv-ct-cl_4/html/0143-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CHARLES J. SCHUCK, Judge. ROBERT L. BLAND, JUDGE,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 620
    THOMAS SAUNDERS, Claimant, v. STATE ROAD COMMISSION, Respondent.
    
      Opinion filed April 26, 1948
    
    Appearances:
    P. W. Hendricks and John Mark Stephens, for claimant.
    
      W. Bryan Spillers, Assistant Attorney General, for the state.
   CHARLES J. SCHUCK, Judge.

Claimant’s horse, while being ridden across bridge No. 3, spanning a tributary of Big Coal River located near Highcoal in Boone county, broke through the floor thereof and was so badly injured that it had to be destroyed. The horse was very valuable, being a five-year old, five-gaited saddle horse, sometimes used to perform light farm work, and seemingly sound and healthy in all respects. The uncontradicted testimony shows the animal to have been worth the sum of $300.00 at the time of the accident. An inspection of the bridge by the road authorities, after the accident, showed the bridge to have been in bad condition and in need of repair. The state admitted liability and submitted to the court the question of determining the value of the horse at the time it broke through the bridge floor and was injured as herein stated.

Claimant had also in his first presentation of the claim asked for an award for personal injuries. He was riding the horse across the bridge in question at the time and place of the accident. However, he withdrew his claim for personal injuries and the claim was accordingly dismissed and we have now before us only the question of the value of the horse. As before stated, the evidence as to value is un-contradicted. That it was an unusually valuable animal, suited not only for saddle purposes but for work as well, is likewise proven, and we are of opinion that an award of three hundred dollars ($300.00) should be made to claimant; that there is a moral obligation on the part of the state to pay claimant, arising out of the facts and circumstances as presented, and we therefore make a recommendation accordingly.

ROBERT L. BLAND, JUDGE,

concurring.

The evidence offered in this case in support of the merit of the claim involved consists of the testimony of the claimant, that of his father, who had given the horse to his son, and one other witness. The state filed a plea contesting the right of the claimant to an award and upon the hearing an assistant attorney general stipulated that the bridge on which the accident occurred, and where claimant’s horse was so badly injured and crippled that it became necessary for it to be shot, was in a defective condition and produced no evidence in opposition to the claim. The evidence offered by the claimant showed the horse to be of the value of $300.00. In view of the manner in which the claim is presented to the court and the failure of the state to offer any evidence in opposition to the claim, I reluctantly concur in the determination made. I may add, however, that personally I do not feel that the hands of the court, as an investigating body, should be tied by stipulation of fact where issues are involved. If a claimant and the attorney general’s office may agree upon a valid award of the public funds, it would seem to me that there would be no occasion to have a court of claims.