Court Opinion

ID: 9577213
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:33:04.432773+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:10.904573
License: Public Domain

Fox, Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent from the decision of the majority in this case. The principles of law involved herein are, it seems to me, identical with those involved in the case of State ex rel. Price v. Edgar B. Sims, Auditor, decided on this day, 134 W. Va. 173. I dissented from the decision of the majority in that case, and the reasons stated for such dissent will explain my views in relation to this case and need not be repeated.
I desire to associate myself with the position taken by Judge Bland, a member of the Court of Claims, who, in his reluctant concurrence in the finding of that court deplored the action of the Attorney General in stipulating that the bridge involved was out of repair, and in not requiring the same to be shown by evidence. While the facts in this case might clearly show an act of negligence on the part of an employee of the State, it is an unsafe practice on the part of the representatives of the State to-*167concede in advance what is, in effect, the State’s liability. If one makes a claim on the theory of a moral obligation of the State to pay the same, and his claim has the sanction of the Legislature and the Attorney General as the representatives of the State, there would seem to be no safeguard against unjust awards payable out of the public treasury.
I am authorized to state that Judge Lovins joins in this dissent. -