
    
      OPINION ISSUED DECEMBER 12, 2008
    
    
      JOHN B. MOWERY JR. VS. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
    (CC-07-0087)
    Claimant appeared pro se.
    
    Jason C. Workman, Attorney at Law, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM:

Claimant brought this action for vehicle damage which occurred when gravel on the 1-64 eastbound exit ramp at Cross Lanes struck the windshield of his 2006 Nissan Frontier pickup truck. The 1-64 Cross Lanes exit ramp is an area maintained by respondent. The Court is of the opinion to deny the claim for the reasons more fully stated below.

The incident giving rise to this claim occurred at approximately 8:30 a.m. on September 6,2006. The 1-64 eastbound Cross Lanes exit ramp is a one-lane, paved road. As claimant was driving on the exit ramp at approximately fifteen miles per hour, he noticed that there was loose gravel situated one third of the way across the exit ramp. There was a sp orts utility vehicle in front of him on the exit ramp. When the sp orts utility vehicle drove through this area, pieces of gravel were thrown into the air and struck the vehicle’s windshield. Claimant surmised that respondent was responsible for the loose gravel at this location. The gravel looked misplaced, and he thought it came off the back of one of respondent’s trucks. Although respondent had finished performing work on the exit ramp, he stated that he saw respondent’s employees performing road construction in the vicinity. As a result of this incident, claimant’s vehicle sustained damage to its windshield in the amount of $264.69.

The position of the respondent is that it did not have actual or constructive notice of the condition on the 1-64 Cross Lanes exit ramp at the site of claimant’s accident for the date in question. Respondent did not present any witnesses at the hearing of this matter.

The well-established principle of law in West Virginia is that the State is neither an insurer nor a guarantor of the safety of travelers upon its roads. Adkins v. Sims, 130 W.Va. 645; 46 S.E.2d 81 (1947). In order to hold respondent liable for road defects of this type, a claimant must prove that respondent had actual or constructive notice of the defect and a reasonable time to take corrective action. Chapman v. Dep’t of Highways, 16 Ct. Cl. 103 (1986).

In the instant case, the Court finds that respondent did not have actual or constructive notice of the loose gravel located on the 1-64 Cross Lanes exit ramp. Although claimant contends that the loose gravel came from one of respondent’s trucks, an award cannot be based on mere speculation. The Court finds that the claimant has not established that the damage to his vehicle was caused by any negligence on the part of the respondent, and further, it would be mere speculation for the Court to conclude where the excess gravel in the road came from. Therefore, the Court is constrained by the evidence to deny this claim.

In view of the foregoing, the Court is of the opinion to and does deny this claim.

Claim disallowed.  