# Joseph E. Jackson/W. Va. Dept. of Trans. v. Joseph Wayne Belcher

> West Virginia Supreme Court · September 26, 2013 · 232 W. Va. 513

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9521761

## Case

- **Full name:** Joseph E. JACKSON and West Virginia Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, Defendants Below, Petitioners v. Joseph Wayne BELCHER, Plaintiff Below, Respondent
- **Court:** West Virginia Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 26, 2013
- **Citations:** 232 W. Va. 513; 753 S.E.2d 11; 2013 W. Va. LEXIS 961; 2013 WL 5433539
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Benjamin
- **Judges:** Davis, Benjamin, Loughry, Workman
- **Nature of suit:** Tort, Contract, and Real Property
- **Cited by:** 11 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9521761

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that “to fulfill a statute’s legislative intent, it is necessary to give effect to every word and part of a statute”
- recognizing significance of statutory immunity and detrimental effects of “render[ing] the immunity plainly articulated by the Legislature wholly without effect”

## Opinion text

BENJAMIN, Chief Justice,
dissenting:
(Filed Dec. 27, 2013)
I agree with much of the analysis in Justice Loughry’s dissenting opinion. I write separately to emphasize that the majority’s strained reliance on the four words, “or any other law,” in W. Va.Code § 15 — 5—11(a), ignores completely the statutory framework set forth by the Legislature. In its opinion, the majority of this Court effectively suggests the bizarre scenario that the Legislature, in enacting W. Va.Code § 15-5-11(a), intended to make a law that is devoid of purpose. I find such reasoning to be illogical and at odds with common sense.
Specifically, if W. Va.Code § 15-5-ll(a) did not exist, under this Court’s jurisprudence, an individual could sue the State for an injury allegedly caused by the State’s provision of emergency services where the recovery sought is confined to the limits of the State’s liability insurance coverage. As a result of the majority’s construction of W. Va.Code § 15-5-ll(a), an individual can still sue the State for an injury allegedly caused by the State’s provision of emergency services where the recovery sought is confined to the limits of the State’s liability insurance coverage. Thus, according to the majority, the Legislature took considerable time and effort to do something which, in effect, results in no difference. Certainly, this odd result could not be what the Legislature had in mind when it enacted this statute.
Because of the majority’s erroneous construction of W. Va.Code § 15-5-11(a), I dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9521761. Public record. Not legal advice.