$490,000 verdict upheld: one less defense in auto accident personal injury trials

The Virginia Supreme Court handed down a decision in Richmond during its January session which removes  the "unavoidable accident" doctrine from the available defenses in personal injury claims arising from automobile, motorcycle, and truck accidents. A car accident in Central Virginia gave rise to the case of Hancock-Underwood v. Knight, 227 Va. 127 (2009). An Amherst County jury awarded the victim's family $490,000 in compensation for the death and injuries suffered as a result of the car accident. That verdict was upheld in the Virginia Supreme Court's decision. 

In reference to the "unavoidable accident" doctrine, Justice Donald W. Lemons wrote for the Court: "In consideration of the prevailing concerns of the states that have rejected the instruction -- that it merely restates the law of negligence, overemphasizes the defendant's case , and is apt to confuse and mislead - we join those states and hold that it is error to grant an unavoidable accident instruction." Id. at 136.   

Slip and Fall Injury Lawsuits Keep Theme Parks in Court

Richmond area theme parks should take notice of a recent article in the Orlando Sentinel. The vast majority of law suits brought against Florida theme parks are related to injuries suffered from slip and fall accidents. Theme parks offer so many services (transportation, dining, shopping, animal shows, live entertainment, and mechanical attractions) to thousands of people every day that it is no surprise injuries arise during the course of business.  Nonetheless, the large jury verdicts and settlement amounts awarded in successful claims for slip and fall injuries will likely grab the attention of Ashland's King's Dominion and Williamsburg's Busch Gardens.

$3.2 Million Verdict for Injured Shopper

An injured IKEA shopper received good news from a Fairfax County jury today. The jury returned a verdict of $3.2 Million in favor of the plaintiff in a premises liability lawsuit arising from injuries the shopper suffered when vertically stacked eight-foot-long countertops, secured only by a bungee cord, fell on her. Two surgeries left the injured shopper with damages of $75,000 in medical bills, $50,000 in lost wages, and permanent disabilities. 

The shopper must be glad she did not settle the matter, as IKEA's highest offer prior to trial was $220,000.  

Circuit Court Judge Orders Reduction Of Jury Verdict In Mold Case

A Loudon County judge recently reduced a jury award in a mold exposure case in which a family claimed to have sustained personal injuries due to mold in their home.  The jury awarded 4.75 million dollars, and the trial judge reduced the award to 1.45 million dollars.  The judge found in part that the verdict was excessive, leading the judge to believe that the jury had misunderstood the law.  The judge further noted that although one of the plaintiff's had suffered significant injuries, the injuries were not permanent in nature.

The judge's decision appears to be at odds with Supreme Court precedent, which requires that a verdict "shock the conscience" to be reduced.  In Norfolk Beveridge v. Cho, a husband and wife were assaulted by a truck driver and incurred $1,300 and $8,500 in economic damages respectively.  The jury returned verdicts of $160,000 and $310,000.  In a very brief analysis, the Supreme Court simply noted that "the amount of the jury verdicts are not shocking to this court," and upheld the jury verdicts.

Perhaps most interesting, the primary argument the defendant asserted in Norfolk Beverage, was that there was no evidence of a permanent injury.  The Supreme Court found this argument unconvincing, yet this was the main reason that the Loudon County court cited when reducing the verdict.