State ex rel. Ladanye v. W. Va. Legislative Claims Comm'n

• Decision Date: 22 November 2019
• Docket Number: No. 18-0356,18-0356
• Citation: 242 W.Va. 420,836 S.E.2d 71
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of West Virginia EX REL. Danita LADANYE, Administratrix of the Estate of Jonathan S. Ladanye, Petitioner v. WEST VIRGINIA LEGISLATIVE CLAIMS COMMISSION and West Virginia Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, Respondents

242 W.Va. 420

836 S.E.2d 71

STATE of West Virginia EX REL. Danita LADANYE, Administratrix of the Estate of Jonathan S. Ladanye, Petitioner

v.WEST VIRGINIA LEGISLATIVE CLAIMS COMMISSION and West Virginia Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, Respondents

No. 18-0356

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted: October 16, 2019

Filed: November 22, 2019

Mark R. Staun, David B. Lunsford, Hartley Law Group, PLLC, Wheeling, West Virginia and Sean J. Sawyer, Higinbotham & Higinbotham, PLLC, Fairmont, West Virginia, Attorneys for the Petitioner

Stacy A. Jacques, Francis M. Curnutte, Charleston, West Virginia, Attorneys for the Respondent, West Virginia Department of Transportation, Division of Highways

Doren Burrell, Staff Attorney, West Virginia Legislature Joint Committee on Government and Finance, Charleston, West Virginia and Daniel W. Greear, Chief Counsel, West Virginia House of Delegates, Charleston, West Virginia and James M. Bailey, Chief Counsel, West Virginia Senate, Charleston, West Virginia, Attorneys for the Respondent, West Virginia Legislative Claims Commission

Jenkins, Justice:

Petitioner, Danita Ladanye, Administratrix of the Estate of Jonathan S. Ladanye ("Mrs. Ladanye"), requests this Court to issue a writ of certiorari to vacate an opinion issued on February 27, 2018, by Respondent, the West Virginia Legislative Claims Commission (the "Claims Commission").¹ On December 9, 2015,² Mrs. Ladanye submitted a notice of claim with the Claims Commission against Respondent, the West Virginia Department of Transportation, Division of Highways ("the WVDOT"), following the death of her son. Subsequent to discovery and a hearing, the Claims Commission issued an opinion that stated it "[was] of the opinion to deny this claim." Before us now, Mrs. Ladanye contends that this Court has the authority, on a limited basis, to review an opinion issued by the Claims Commission on a writ of certiorari. Mrs. Ladanye further contends that several errors were committed during the hearing before the Claims Commission and in the resulting opinion. Upon review of the parties’ briefs, oral arguments, the submitted record, and the pertinent authorities, we deny the requested writ of certiorari because we find that the opinion of the Claims Commission is not reviewable by this Court on a writ of certiorari at this procedural posture.

I.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 17, 2014, there was a single vehicle crash in Monongalia County, West Virginia. Mrs. Ladanye’s son, Jonathan S. Ladanye ("Mr. Ladanye"), was one of two passengers in a vehicle operated by James A. Coffman ("Mr. Coffman") that ramped over a snow pile along a bridge parapet wall on Interstate 79. The vehicle then fell approximately thirty feet to the roadway below the bridge. The WVDOT contends that Mr. Coffman accelerated on the entrance ramp of Interstate 79 until the vehicle completed three 360 degree spins on the icy roadway. Mr. Coffman continued to drive the vehicle, fishtailing around the road until he hit and drove over the side of the bridge. Mr. Ladanye was seriously injured from the accident and was subsequently pronounced dead at Ruby Memorial Hospital in Morgantown, West Virginia.³ According to the WVDOT, Mr. Coffman had a blood alcohol content of .218 and illegal drugs in his system.

On December 9, 2015, Mrs. Ladanye, as administratrix of her son’s estate, submitted a notice of claim with the Claims Commission against the WVDOT. In her notice of claim, Mrs. Ladanye alleged that "the fatal crash was caused by, inter alia , [the WVDOT’s] failure to maintain Interstate 79 pursuant to the standards outlined in [the WVDOT’s] Maintenance Division Performance Standards." In particular, Mrs. Ladanye asserted that the vehicle "encountered a large snow pile on the shoulder of the bridge which paralleled and covered the parapet wall of the bridge" and "[w]hen the vehicle encountered the large snow pile that covered the top of the parapet wall, the snow pile acted as a ramp, and the vehicle launched over the parapet wall of the bridge, falling to Fairmont Road below the bridge." Mrs. Ladanye contended that the WVDOT was negligent in failing to timely remove the snow pile and that it was reasonably foreseeable "that a vehicle may be launched over a parapet wall to the ground below if the vehicle encounter[ed] an uncleaned snow pile on the shoulder of the bridge[.]" In response, the WVDOT contended that it was not negligent and that the snow removal activities of the Division of Highways were appropriate and consistent with its policies and procedures. The WVDOT further argued that the sole and proximate cause of the vehicle accident in question was the negligence of Mr. Coffman.

Following discovery, on August 16, 2017, Mrs. Ladanye and the WVDOT engaged in a one-day hearing before the Claims Commission. During the hearing, Mrs. Ladanye produced three witnesses: William Yaskoweak, First Sergeant with the Monongalia County Sheriff’s Office; Larry Weaver, designated representative for the WVDOT; and Kevin Beachy, an expert. The WVDOT produced two witnesses: Jerry Pigman, an expert; and Larry Weaver. After the conclusion of the hearing, the Claims Commission, on February 27, 2018, issued its opinion that Mrs. Ladanye’s claim for compensation for the death of her son should be denied. The opinion stated that

[t]he law in the State of West Virginia has been adhered to by this Commission consistently in that [the WVDOT] may be held liable for defective conditions on its roads only where it has been established that the [WVDOT] knew or should have known of the defective condition and had a reasonable time in which to take corrective action.

Furthermore, the opinion provided that

[a]fter having carefully reviewed the testimony, the exhibits admitted into evidence, the argument of counsel and the findings of facts and conclusions of law submitted at the conclusion of the hearing, the Commission is of the opinion that [the WVDOT] was not negligent in its maintenance of the Westover Bridge parapet when this accident occurred.

It further stated that the Claims Commission was "also of the opinion that there were circumstances surrounding this accident [that] would have made a recovery by [Mrs. Ladanye] difficult." Finally, the opinion concluded that

[a]lthough the Commission is not unmindful of the tragedy [that] has occurred for [Mrs. Ladanye] as the mother of the deceased, the Commission must base its decisions upon the facts and the law as it relates to each claim.

Accordingly, the Commission is of the opinion to deny this claim.

On March 6, 2018, Mrs. Ladanye filed with the Claims Commission a motion to alter or amend the opinion. In her motion, Mrs. Ladanye asserted that several factual findings made by the Claims Commission were clearly wrong based upon the evidence presented at the hearing; that there were "glaring omissions contained within the conclusions of law"; and that the Claims Commission "blindly ignore[d] the evidence presented[,] ... the weight of such evidence, and the laws of West Virginia." On March 13, 2018, the Claims Commission entered an Order noting that it "considered [Mrs. Ladanye’s] Motion ... requesting a rehearing and reconsideration of the Commission’s Opinion[.]" The Claims Commission’s March 13, 2018 Order found "that there [were] no new issues or newly-discovered evidence presented in [Mrs. Ladanye’s] Motion that mandate either an appeal or a new hearing[.]" The Order stated that the claim "remain[ed] disallowed^{[4 ]} and dismissed" the matter from the docket of the Claims Commission. From these adverse findings and recommendations, Mrs. Ladanye seeks a writ of certiorari from this Court.

II.STANDARD FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT

Mrs. Ladanye brought this action seeking a writ of certiorari from the opinion of the Claims Commission. A petition for a writ of certiorari invokes this Court’s original jurisdiction. See W. Va. Const. art. VIII, § 3 ("The [S]upreme [C]ourt of [A]ppeals shall have original jurisdiction of proceedings in habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition[,] and certiorari."). We have stated that a writ of certiorari "is an extraordinary remedy used in cases where there has been an error in justice which cannot be reviewed and corrected by the ordinary forms of procedure." Ashworth v. Hatcher , 98 W. Va. 323, 325, 128 S.E. 93, 94 (1924) (citations omitted). Furthermore, we have previously held that "[a] writ of certiorari will lie from an inferior tribunal, acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity, where substantial rights are alleged to have been violated and where there is no other statutory right of review given." Syl. pt. 4, in part, North v. Bd. of Regents , 160 W. Va. 248, 233 S.E.2d 411 (1977).

Elaborating on the discretionary nature of the writ of certiorari, this Court has explained that

[t]he extraordinary remedy of certiorari is not granted as a matter of right, but rather is relief that rests within the sound discretion of the Court: "The remedy by writ of certiorari ... to review the judgment of a[n inferior tribunal], is not given as a matter of right, but is awarded by the court ... for cause on proper case shown." Syl. pt. 1, in part, Harrow v. Ohio River R.R. Co., 38 W. Va. 711, 18 S.E. 926 (1894). Accord W. Va. Rev. R. App. Proc. 16(a) ("Issuance by the Court of an extraordinary writ is not a matter of right, but of discretion sparingly exercised."); Syl. pt. 2, in part, Welch v. County Court of Wetzel Cnty. , 29 W. Va. 63, 1 S.E. 337 (1886) ("A writ of certiorari is not a writ of right, but the issuing of it is dependent on a sound judicial discretion[.]").

Foster Found. v. Gainer , 228 W. Va. 99, 104, 717 S.E.2d 883, 888 (2011) (alteration in original). Moreover, a writ of "[c ]ertiorari is an extraordinary remedy resorted to for the purpose of supply[ing] a defect of justice in cases obviously entitled to redress and yet unprovided for by the ordinary forms of proceeding." Syl. pt. 1, Poe v. Mach....