Burden of Proof Cases Summarized By Injury Lawyer
This page within Virginia Tort Case Law is a compilation of cases reported by the Virginia Supreme Court and summarized by Brien Roche dealing with the topic of Burden of Proof and the related topic of product laibility.
1987 Collier v. Rice, 233 Va. 522, 356 S.E.2d 845.
Burden of proof in breach of warranty case consists of proving pertinent terms of warranty and fact that those terms were breached. Plaintiff in this case proved no breach. Evidence simply indicated that damage was caused by one of two causes, both extraneous to product.
1986 Wharton v. Savin Corp., 232 Va. 375, 350 S.E.2d 635.
Under UCC, measure of damages for breach of warranty is difference at time of place of acceptance between value of goods accepted and value they would have had if they had been as warranted, unless special circumstances show proximate damages as different amount. Plaintiff’s testimony that defective goods are valueless to him, without more, is insufficient to establish that goods have no value. Expert testimony that mobile home was valueless is sufficient evidence to support such finding, however.
1975 Logan v. Montgomery Ward, 216 Va. 425, 219 S.E.2d 685.
Under either warranty or negligence theory, plaintiff must show: (1) that goods were unreasonably dangerous either for use to which they would ordinarily be put or for some other reasonably foreseeable purpose; and that (2) unreasonably dangerous condition existed when goods left defendant’s hands. In this case involving explosion of gas stove, there was no evidence as to cause of explosion.
1965 Smith v. Mooers, 206 Va. 307, 142 S.E.2d 473.
Tire blow-out case. Burden required of plaintiff is to show: (1) tire defective when turned over to plaintiff; (2) defect could have been discovered by reasonable inspection; (3) duch inspection was not made by defendant.