Tort Law

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 Animals-Roadway and the related topic of vehicle accidents.  

Animals-Roadway: Statutes

See Va. Code § 46.2-800 stating that person riding or driving animal on highway shall have same rights and duties of driver of vehicle unless context of provision indicate otherwise.

Animals-Roadway: Cases

1977 Virginia Farm Bur. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Simpkins, 217 Va. 611, 231 S.E.2d 226.

Plaintiff’s decedent in fulfilling duty to remove loose calf from highway was inhibited by unpredictable movements of calf and was not pedestrian within meaning of statute. No instruction based on pedestrian statute should have been given.

1976 Semones v. Johnson, 217 Va. 293, 227 S.E.2d 731.

Plaintiff applied brakes to keep from hitting dogs in right lane near edge of pavement; struck in rear by defendant’s vehicle. Error to strike plaintiff’s evidence.

1976 Maxey v. John Doe, 217 Va. 22, 225 S.E.2d 359.

Animals-roadway.Plaintiff leading horse along shoulder of road; uninsured motorist, by blowing horn, caused horse to rear, lose its balance, and fall on plaintiff. Policyholder failed to claim coverage under uninsured motorist endorsement promptly and file accident report with D.M.V.

1964 Wilkins v. Sibley, 205 Va. 171, 135 S.E.2d 765.

Animals-roadway.Mule escaped from pasture and was on highway when struck. Plaintiff proved that defendant negligent in not properly securing gate but failed to show how or by whom gate was opened; therefore, proximate cause not established.

1959 Bayne v. Tharp, 201 Va. 484, 111 S.E.2d 816.

Plaintiff was leading mule along highway; as such, did not constitute pedestrian plaintiff had right to lead mule along right side of highway.

1955 Jessee v. Slate, 196 Va. 1074, 86 S.E.2d 821.

Any person riding horse on highway is subject to same rules and regulations applicable to driver of motor vehicle except those provisions that by their very nature can have no application. Motor vehicle operator has duty to make reasonable allowance for natural characteristics of horse before attempting to pass.

1950 Rice v. Turner, 191 Va. 601, 62 S.E.2d 24.

Plaintiff’s vehicle struck defendant’s cow on highway at night. Fact that animal was on highway unattended does not make out prima facie case of negligence, that is, doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply. It is matter of common knowledge that cow at large at night not infrequently becomes scared by glare of headlights and is likely to run into path of automobile.

1944 Clay v. Bishop, 182 Va. 746, 30 S.E.2d 585.

Defendant’s truck collided with horse being led by plaintiff on right side of road. Verdict for plaintiff.