Tort Law

Brien Roche Law > Tort Law Resources > Tort Case Law > Tort Law Cases – A > Appeal Contemporaneous Objection Cases

Appeal Contemporaneous Objection Cases

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 Appeal Contemporaneous Objection and the related topic of personal injury.  For more information on the topic of contemporaneous objection see the page on Wikipedia.

Appeal Contemporaneous Objection-Cases

2010 Johnson v. Hart, 279 Va. 617, 692 S.E.2d 239.
An attorney who wins on summary judgment and signs the Order as seen and consented to does not thereby waive objections to previously rulings made by the Trial Court to which appropriate objection had been made.

2004 Gamache v. Allen, 268 Va. 222, 601 S.E.2d 598.
Appeal contemporaneous objection.On this appeal of a medical malpractice action, defendant did not challenge the finding of negligence and, as such, on remand, the case is to be tried solely on the issues of causation and damages.

2002 City of Richmond v. Holt, 264 Va. 101, 563 S.E.2d 690.
Appeal contemporaneous objection.Suit against city for defect in walkway. City failed to preserve for appeal the issue of whether city intended the grassy area where plaintiff fell to serve as a public way for pedestrian since that was not raised in its motion to strike the evidence at trial.

2002 Johnson v. Raviotta, 264 Va. 27, 563 S.E.2d 727.
Generally, to satisfy the requirements of the appeal contemporaneous objection rule, objection must be made contemporaneous with the introduction of the evidence or at a point in proceeding when trial court is in position not only to consider the error but also to rectify it.

2002 Jones v. Ford Motor Co., 263 Va. 237, 559 S.E.2d 592.
Products liability action. Plaintiff’s attorney raised objection consisting of “objection, foundation” to testimony of Ford Motor expert concerning his experiment in which three of 100 subjects incorrectly stepped on accelerator rather than brake pedal in simulated driving test. This objection did not preserve for appeal plaintiff’s argument that conditions at time of experiment were not similar to conditions that existed when plaintiff was injured in this sudden acceleration case.

2001 Molchon v. Tyler, 262 Va. 175, 546 S.E.2d 691.
Appeal contemporaneous objection.In this medical malpractice action against psychiatrist, psychiatrist claimed that he should have been allowed to present evidence that patient’s insurance carrier improperly denied coverage for his request to be readmitted on the night of his suicide. This argument was raised in post trial motion to set aside verdict and psychiatrist did not assign error to trial court’s denial of that motion. Therefore, issue cannot be raised on appeal for first time.

2001 Parker-Smith v. Sto Corp., 262 Va. 432, 551 S.E.2d 615.
Plaintiff sought to pursue appeal as to dismissal of breach of warranty claim on theory that warranty was unconscionable for excluding liability for consequential damages. That error was not preserved on appeal and trial court had independent basis for dismissing breach of warranty claim and therefore, the appeal is denied.

2000 Majorana v. Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp., 260 Va. 521, 539 S.E.2d 426.
Appeal contemporaneous objection.Failure to present argument before supreme court constitutes waiver and therefore, court refused to consider merits. In addition to order bifurcating trial, counsel signed the order as “objected to for reasons noted in open court.” There was no transcript or authorized statement presented setting forth what these reasons were and as such, supreme court refused to consider that assignment of error.

1994 United Leasing Corp. v. Thrift Ins. Corp., 247 Va. 299, 440 S.E.2d 902.
Appeal contemporaneous objection.In final order trial court stated that summary judgment was granted for reasons stated in transcript of hearing. In transcript trial court stated that it was ruling in favor of Thrift on Thrift’s reasons. Appellant failed to raise assignment of error challenging these independent grounds, and as such order of trial court became final and appellate review is barred.

1993 Loving v. Hayden, 245 Va. 441, 429 S.E.2d 8.
Appeal contemporaneous objection.Trial court overturned jury verdict in favor of plaintiff. Defendant subsequently filed petition for appeal arguing that trial court erred in not granting motion for mistrial. Petition for appeal dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction since petitioners were recipients of favorable final judgment. When plaintiff subsequently appealed trial court overturning jury verdict, defendant failed to raise any cross error as part of that appeal, and as such cross error relating to denial of motion for mistrial will not be considered as part of this appeal.

1991 Weidman v. Babcock, 241 Va. 40, 400 S.E.2d 164.
Appeal contemporaneous objection.Parties failure to object to final order by merely endorsing it as “seen” without more is not sufficient to preserve parties’ right to appeal. In this case initial order was signed as “seen.” Counsel did, however, make known his position and further motion to reconsider was filed that set forth plaintiff’s position. That motion was denied and that order was signed as “seen” and “all exceptions noted.” That was sufficient to preserve objection for appeal.

1989 Langley v. Meredith, 237 Va. 55, 376 S.E.2d 519.
Appeal contemporaneous objection.Endorsement of order as “seen” does not preserve for appeal the issues raised.

1986 Spitzli v. Minson, 231 Va. 12, 341 S.E.2d 170.
Rule 5:25 permits this court to consider point not properly preserved in order to attain ends of justice.<

1985 The Gazette, Inc. v. Harris, 229 Va. 1, 325 S.E.2d 713.
Appeal contemporaneous objection.Defendant did not object to business loss reference in instruction due to lack of supporting evidence. He cannot now object on appeal.

1983 Gardner v. Old Dominion Stevedoring Corp., 225 Va. 599, 303 S.E.2d 914.
Plaintiff attempted to raise on appeal for first time issue of last clear chance. That issue will not be considered on appeal since it was not raised below.

1980 Marshall v. Goughnour, 221 Va. 265, 269 S.E.2d 801.
Objections in trial court must be made with sufficient specificity as to give trial court opportunity to intelligently rule.

1979 Lane v. Scott, 220 Va. 578, 260 S.E.2d 238.
No cross-error assigned. Issue cannot be raised on appeal.
1977 Rome v. Kelly Springfield Tire Co., 217 Va. 943, 234 S.E.2d 277.
Objection not made to trial court’s rulings on instructions; assignments of crosserror regarding those instructions will not be considered.

1975 Murphy v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 216 Va. 490, 219 S.E.2d 874.
Issue of apparent agency not raised below and cannot be raised on appeal.

1975 Cubbage v. Meadows, 215 Va. 502, 211 S.E.2d 262.
Alternative argument based on ground not made in trial court will not be entertained on appeal.

1974 Womack v. Eldridge, 215 Va. 338, 210 S.E.2d 145.
Contention in brief and in oral argument as to error in trial court by party who did not assign cross-error will not be noticed.

1974 Charlottesville Music Center, Inc. v. McCray, 215 Va. 31, 205 S.E.2d 674.
Since sole ground of objection relied on in brief and oral argument is not same as ground stated in trial court, it will not be noticed.

1972 Faccinna v. Richardson, 213 Va. 440, 192 S.E.2d 791.
At pretrial, defendant requested that no evidence of drinking on his part be admitted; not error to deny motion at that time. Later, evidence of drinking admitted without objection; point not properly preserved for appeal.

1972 Myers v. Sutton, 213 Va. 59, 189 S.E.2d 336
Objection not timely made will not be considered on appeal.

1972 Clarendon House, Inc. v. Helfert, 213 Va. 28, 189 S.E.2d 331.
Errors assigned were not preserved by objection in trial court. May not raise questions for first time on appeal.

1966 Zayre of Va., Inc. v. Gowdy, 207 Va. 47, 147 S.E.2d 710.
Objection to instruction comes too late when first made after verdict on hearing of motion for new trial.

1964 Terminal Cars, Inc. v. Wagner, 205 Va. 214, 135 S.E.2d 802.
Errors in instruction not pointed out to trial court and cannot be raised now.

1963 Bolling v. GMAC, 204 Va. 4, 129 S.E.2d 54.
Court of Appeals will not consider question of fraud where it is raised for first time on appeal.

1955 Norfolk & P. Belt Line R.R. v. C.F. Mueller Co., 197 Va. 533, 90 S.E.2d 135.
Failure to object at trial is waiver of error.

1948 Solomon v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R., 187 Va. 240, 46 S.E.2d 369.
Supreme Court rule requires that specific objection be stated. There is no necessity to apply rule where character of objection is perfectly patent.

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

Appeal Contemporaneous Objection Cases

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

Contact Us For A Free Consultation