OPINION ISSUED DECEMBER 2, 1988

BARRY M. DOSS AND KATHY L. DOSS
VS.
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS

(CC-88-98)

Claimants appeared in person.
Nancy J. Aliff, Attorney at Law, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

In the third week of May of 1987, claimant Kathy L. Doss was operating
her 1987 Colt Vista
automobile on McJunkin Road in Nitro. Gravel and a tar-like substance
was present on the
road. This material splashed onto claimants' automobile. Claimants seek
$915.00, which
includes $315.00 as the cost of cleaning the car and punitive damages.

Claimant Kathy L. Doss testified that she was returning home from work
at approximately
5:00 p.m on the day of the incident. She had observed crews in
respondent's trucks placing
material on the road earlier. At the date of hearing, the claimants had
not had the substance
cleaned off the vehicle.

Claimant Barry Doss testified that he had observed respondent's
vehicles placing the tar
substance on the road and then returning to place gravel. At the time of
this incident, he
remembered that the weather was very warm.
Andrew Morgan Allen, maintenance assistant with respondent, for an area
including Putnam
and Boone Counties and Corridor G. testified that the location of the
accident is included in his
area. Tar was applied at that location on April 20, 1987. At that time,
respondent patched holes
in the road by spraying asphalt and placing chips in the holes. Between
April 20, 1987, and the
third week in May, 1987, he stated that he did not have any complaints
concerning the tar. He
was notified of a problem on May 21, 1987. On that occasion, the asphalt
bled. Bleeding is not
a problem which normally occurs after tar is applied. From his
experience with this procedure, it
is his opinion that the high temperature caused the problem. He and his
crew only "chipped" the
holes in the road.

It is the opinion of the Court that the tar was placed on the road by
respondent and the
damage to claimants' automobile occurred when the substance bled through
the road surface
which did not have a sufficient amount of chips to protect vehicles from
the splashing of tar. For
this reason, the Court was disposed to make an award to claimants in the
amount of $315.00.
The Court disallows that portion of the claim for punitive damages claim.

Subsequent to the hearing, the claimants advised the Clerk of the Court
that their automobile
damage claim had been paid to them by their automobile insurance
company, except for the
deductible amount of $100.00

Award of $100.00.