Virginia Injury Lawyers Blog

March 6, 2017

Court Determines School’s Efforts to Melt Snow in Parking Lot Did Not Increase the Chance of Student’s Slip-and-Fall Accident

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a premises liability case that required the court to determine if a school could be held liable in a case in which a student slipped and fell on a patch of ice that formed after the school applied snow-melt in the immediate area. Ultimately, the court concluded that while the school’s actions did alter the natural state of the snow on its property, there was no evidence suggesting that the school’s actions increased the risk of an accident. Thus, the case against the school was dismissed.

A Student Playing on an Ice Patch Slips and Falls

A student at the defendant middle school was playing on a patch of ice with some friends when he fell, chipping a tooth and fracturing his nose. The boy’s parents filed a premises liability lawsuit against the school, arguing that the school should be held liable for his injuries because it negligently allowed the ice patch to form.

The school moved for summary judgment, explaining that the snow or ice is cleared by school employees each morning. Evidence also showed that school employees applied snow-melt to the parking lot in order to get the snow and ice in the parking lot to melt. The school argued that it should not be held liable for the natural accumulation of snow or ice on the property.

February 22, 2017

Proof of Causation Is Imperative in Virginia Slip-and-Fall Cases

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Property owners across the State of Virginia owe a duty to those whom they invite onto their land. The extent of that duty depends on the relationship between the parties. However, as a general rule, if someone is invited onto the property of another party and slips and falls due to a hazardous condition, they may have a case for damages against the property owner.

One common requirement for all premises liability lawsuits is that the injured party must be able to establish that the landowner’s negligence was the cause of their injuries. This is called the causation element. A recent case illustrates how a plaintiff’s inability to prove causation can be fatal to a premises liability lawsuit.

A Slip-and-Fall Accident Inside a Fast-Food Restaurant

The plaintiff in the case was a woman who was attempting to visit a fast-food restaurant. Like many businesses, the restaurant’s entrance consisted of two sets of double doors, with a small foyer between them. The plaintiff entered the first set of doors without a problem, but as she tried to open the second set of doors, she was unable to do so. She jiggled the door with no luck. She then started to shake the door, trying to open it, and the next thing she knew, she was on the floor. After she fell, she noticed that the ground around her was damp due to the rain outside.

February 16, 2017

How a Violation of a Jurisdiction Rule Can Result in a Court’s Inability to Hear a Case or Appeal

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

To help combat the increasing demand on the court system, court have implemented a series of strict rules that plaintiffs must follow in order to have their case heard in a timely manner. There are various types of rules, and the penalty for the violation of a rule depends on which type of rule was violated.

One type of court rule is a jurisdictional rule. Jurisdictional rules are perhaps the most important because when they are not followed, the court loses the power to issue a binding decision in a case. For example, statutes of limitations are considered to be jurisdictional rules. Thus, if a party fails to file a lawsuit within a certain amount of time, the court loses the power to hear the case. Since the violation of a jurisdictional rule deprives the court of the power to hear the case, once a jurisdictional rule is violated, a court cannot make an exception to the application of that rule, even if the court determines it is in the interest of justice.

Other mandatory court rules can, when violated, result in the dismissal of a case. However, since the violation of a non-jurisdiction mandatory rule does not deprive the court of the power to hear the case, courts can readily apply exceptions when they deem it appropriate.

February 8, 2017

Supreme Court of Virginia Upholds Jury’s Zero-Dollar Verdict in Car Accident Case

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of Virginia issued an opinion in a car accident case showing the importance of keeping thorough records in the wake of a car accident. The case involved a plaintiff who was injured in a minor car accident that the defendant admitted he caused. However, since the plaintiff was unable to present sufficient proof that her injuries were caused by the accident, she received no compensation.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was stopped at a red light when she heard “something boom.” She looked up to notice that he car was creeping into the intersection. She was wearing her seatbelt at the time and applied her foot to the brake immediately, stopping the car before it entered the intersection. At no time did the plaintiff’s body come into contact with the steering wheel or dashboard. However, she “tensed up” upon impact.

After the accident, the plaintiff did not notice any bruising, cuts, or scrapes but requested to be taken to the hospital. At the hospital, she was seen and then shortly afterward released. The plaintiff claims to have gone to her primary care doctor’s office twice, complaining of pain in her shoulder and back, shortly after the accident, but she was unable to present proof of these visits. Ten months after the accident, she went to an orthopedic center, and she was diagnosed with a “partial tear around her bicep tendon and a labral tear.” Surgery was recommended and subsequently performed.

February 1, 2017

Hotel Chain May Be Liable for Punitive Damages after Shower Door “Explodes”

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Earlier this month, a federal appellate court issued a written opinion in a premises liability case that reversed a lower court’s determination that the plaintiff was not entitled to punitive damages as a matter of law. The court concluded that, given the facts presented in the plaintiff’s claim, a jury – rather than the judge – should determine whether punitive damages are appropriate.

Punitive Damages Generally

Unlike other types of damages that are designed to return the plaintiff to the position in which they were before being involved in an accident, punitive damages are designed to punish a defendant’s undesirable behavior. Additionally, punitive damages are used by courts to deter other would-be defendants from engaging in the type of conduct that may give rise to this type of award.

A Shower Door Explodes, Injuring a Guest

In the recent case mentioned above, the plaintiff was a woman who was a guest at the defendant hotel. During her stay, the plaintiff was exiting the shower when the shower door “exploded,” causing the broken glass from the door to severely cut her body.

January 23, 2017

Virginia Municipalities Are Responsible for Maintaining Safe Roadways

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

As a general rule, in Virginia, local municipalities are responsible for maintaining the roads within their jurisdiction. When a municipality fails to properly maintain a road, and an accident is caused as a result of that failure, the local municipality may be held liable in a personal injury lawsuit. However, there are limits to both a municipality’s obligation to maintain the roads as well as the liability that the municipality faces for failing to do so.

According to Virginia law, municipalities are required to safely maintain the roads themselves but not the traffic signals, signs, and roadway markings that are on or near the road. The distinction of what exactly constitutes a “road” can be very nuanced, as a recent case illustrates.

Bibler v. Stevenson: The Facts

Bibler was driving through an intersection in Ohio when she was struck from the side by another motorist. The other motorist had a stop sign, but she explained to the responding police officer that she had failed to see the sign because it was overgrown with foliage. The police officer conducted a brief investigation and agreed with the motorist that the sign was obstructed and could not readily be seen.

January 17, 2017

The Importance of Fair Jury Instructions in Virginia Personal Injury Cases

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

An attorney’s job does not stop at presenting his client’s case to the jury. In fact, perhaps one of the most important aspects of an advocate’s role in a Virginia personal injury case is creating the landscape in which his client’s case is viewed by the jury. This landscape is formed in a number of ways, from pre-trial motions determining which evidence is admissible to the instructions that the judge provides to the jury before sending it back to deliberate.

What Are Jury Instructions?

In a Virginia personal injury case, after all of the evidence has been presented by both sides, the judge will provide the jury with a set of instructions, summing up the relevant law that is applicable to the case. These instructions not only guide the jury in the decisions that it must make but can also clarify confusing legal issues or terms. Thus, it is very important that fair jury instructions are provided to a jury before it is sent off to make its determination. A recent case illustrates how important fair jury instructions can be.

Long v. Arnold

Long was involved in a minor car accident when the defendant pulled out in front of her, requiring she steer her car off the side of the road. Long was only traveling at about 10 miles per hour at the time, and when her car left the roadway, it slowly came to a complete stop as it came into contact with some roadside brush.

January 10, 2017

Appellate Court Discusses the Foreseeability Element in Recent Car Accident Case

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Before a personal injury case is submitted to a jury for the ultimate determination of whether the defendant should be held legally and financially responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries, a judge must first determine that each of the plaintiff’s claims meet the necessary elements. If a judge determines that one or more of the plaintiff’s claims fail to meet the elements of that claim, the judge will dismiss the insufficient claims and allow only the legally sufficient claims to proceed.

In a recent case in front of a New York appellate court, the court discussed the foreseeability element that is present in most personal injury cases.

Hain v. Jamison: The Facts

Hain was driving on a rural road late in the evening when she saw a calf that had escaped from its home and was standing in the road. Hain safely pulled over to the side of the road, exited her vehicle, and proceeded to approach the calf and help it off the road. As she was assisting the calf, another motorist came by and struck Hain, tragically killing her.

January 3, 2017

Summary Judgment in Virginia Personal Injury Cases

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Thousands of personal injury cases are filed each year across the State of Virginia. While many of these cases have merit, the reality is that some do not. To help deal with this reality, and to alleviate the burden on the court system, courts have enacted a strict set of procedures to help ensure that only meritorious cases make it in front of a jury. Perhaps the most common of these procedures is a motion for summary judgment.

In Virginia, summary judgment is a way for one party to obtain judgment in their favor very early in the process. Essentially, if summary judgment is appropriate, the judge will enter judgment in favor of that party, and the case is over without the need to submit the case to a jury and engage in additional fact-finding. However, summary judgment is only proper when there “is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”

The burden rests with the moving party, meaning the party that is asking the court for judgment in its favor. This party must establish that – taking the evidence on its face and without assessing credibility – they are entitled to judgment in their favor. If conflicting evidence exists, or a credibility determination must be made between competing sources, summary judgment is not appropriate. A recent case illustrates each party’s burdens in a summary judgment motion filed by the defense in a personal injury case.

December 27, 2016

Appellate Court Reverses Plaintiffs’ Jury Verdict after Finding Government Entity Was Entitled to Design Immunity

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Earlier this month, an appellate court in California issued a written opinion in a case brought by the surviving family members of a man who was killed in an auto-pedestrian accident against the city where the accident occurred. In the case, Gonzales v. City of Atwater, the court reversed the lower court’s decision not to apply governmental design immunity, holding that the government met its burden to establish immunity. As a result, the $3.2 million verdict in favor of the plaintiffs was reversed.

The Facts of the Case

Gonzales was struck and killed in an auto-pedestrian accident occurring at an intersection in the City of Atwater. The surviving family members filed a personal injury lawsuit against both the driver of the truck that struck Gonzales as well as against the City of Atwater. The jury determined that the driver of the truck was not at fault and that the city was fully responsible for the accident, due to the dangerous design of the intersection. The jury awarded the plaintiffs $3.2 million.

The city repeatedly argued at various times throughout the trial that the case against it should be dismissed because it was entitled to immunity through the doctrine of governmental design immunity. Specifically, the city argued that it relied on a 2001 study it had commissioned to determine how to safely design the intersection before constructing the roads at the intersection. The trial court denied all of the city’s motions to dismiss, and a jury eventually issued a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs for $3.2 million.