Wheeling Park Commission v. Joseph and Kerry Dattoli
237 W. Va. 275
W. Va.2016Background
- On Sept. 1, 2007 Joseph Dattoli leaned against a split-rail fence at Oglebay Park maintained by Wheeling Park Commission; the rail broke, he fell, and suffered a rotator-cuff tear requiring surgery.
- The Dattolis sued the Commission for negligence under ordinary negligence principles and under W. Va. Code § 29-12A-4(c) (political-subdivision liability for failure to keep public grounds in repair).
- At trial the Commission moved for judgment as a matter of law at the close of the plaintiffs’ case; the motion was denied and the jury awarded past medical expenses and lost wages but nothing for past pain and suffering.
- The trial court later granted a limited new trial on the issue of past pain and suffering.
- On appeal the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held the Dattolis failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence (no evidence the Commission had actual or constructive notice of a defect) and reversed the judgment and the limited new-trial order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs proved a prima facie negligence case (duty, breach, proximate cause) | Dattoli: Commission had statutory duty to keep grounds/fixtures in repair under §29-12A-4(c); Hargleroad’s testimony about fence age and lack of maintenance records supports breach. | Commission: Plaintiffs produced no evidence of what reasonable maintenance would be, no proof Commission knew or should have known of a defect, so no duty/breach proven. | Held for Commission — plaintiffs did not present evidence of actual or constructive notice of the fence defect; no prima facie negligence shown. |
| Whether §29-12A-4(c) alters negligence elements or lowers plaintiffs’ burden | Dattoli: statute creates duties and supports liability against political subdivisions without common-law premises distinctions. | Commission: Liability still requires proof of negligence elements. | Held: §29-12A-4(c) imposes liability using negligence standards; it does not eliminate elements or reduce evidentiary burden. |
| Whether premises-liability doctrines (invitee/licensee distinctions) apply to public-entity claims | Dattoli: reliance on statute and Carrier to treat public-grounds claims differently than common-law premises rules. | Commission: argued common-law negligence/premises principles control. | Held: Carrier means premises classifications (invitee/licensee) don’t apply to §29-12A-4(c) claims, but the statutory cause still requires traditional negligence proof (duty, breach, notice). |
| Whether trial court erred by granting a new trial limited to past pain and suffering after the verdict | Dattoli: jury’s failure to award pain-and-suffering was insufficient; new trial appropriate on damages. | Commission: challenge denial of JMOL and limited new trial. | Held: Moot after reversal on liability; appellate court reversed judgment and new-trial order because liability was not established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Webb v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., 121 W. Va. 115, 2 S.E.2d 898 (W. Va. 1939) (sets out the three essential elements plaintiff must prove to prevail in negligence).
- Parsley v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 167 W. Va. 866, 280 S.E.2d 703 (W. Va. 1981) (prima facie negligence requires proof of a duty and a breach).
- Sewell v. Gregory, 179 W. Va. 585, 371 S.E.2d 82 (W. Va. 1988) (foreseeability is the test for existence of a duty).
- Carrier v. City of Huntington, 202 W. Va. 30, 501 S.E.2d 466 (W. Va. 1998) (statutory causes against political subdivisions are governed by specific statutory standards rather than common-law invitee/licensee distinctions).
- Roberts v. Gale, 149 W. Va. 166, 139 S.E.2d 272 (W. Va. 1964) (when plaintiff’s evidence, viewed favorably, fails to establish a prima facie right of recovery, the trial court should direct a verdict).