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 Circumstantial Evidence and the related topic of personal injury. For more information on circumstantial evidence issues see the pages on Wikipedia.

Circumstantial Evidence-Cases

1992 Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Watson, 243 Va. 128, 413 S.E.2d 630.

Asbestosis case. Circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to create jury issue that decedent was exposed to defendant’s asbestos-carrying product and that exposure to such was proximate cause of death.

1984 Brill v. Safeway Stores, 227 Va. 246, 315 S.E.2d 214.

Two of defendant’s employees were walking abreast down five-foot-wide aisle when one of employees accidentally struck plaintiff, causing her to fall. Plaintiff’s evidence was sufficient to show how and why accident occurred, i.e., that employee failed to maintain reasonable lookout. Trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion to strike.

1983 Stevens v. Ford Motor Co., 226 Va. 415, 309 S.E.2d 319.

In this case identity of person who engaged in conduct that was immediate cause of accident was not identified. If reasonable men could infer from facts proved that man was Ford employee, question is one for jury. In this case man was identified as “checker” who generally worked in area where this man was seen working. Ford, in fact, employed checker as performing same function this man was performing. In addition, this man was ordered by another Ford employee to assist in activity engaged in. From these facts jury could reasonably infer man was Ford employee.

1983 Chase v. Breit, 226 Va. 102, 306 S.E.2d 877.

When verdict is based on circumstantial evidence all that is required is that jury be satisfied with proof that leads to conclusion with probable certainty, for absolute logical certainty is impossible. If facts proved support reasonable inference that act occurred, jury issue exists.

1982 Farren v. Gilbert, 224 Va. 407, 297 S.E.2d 668.

Negligence constitutes actionable tort only when it is shown to be proximate cause of injury. For circumstantial evidence to establish prima facie case of negligence and causation it must show more than that accident resulted from one of two causes. Plaintiff did not meet burden in this case where plaintiff run over by backing truck.

1982 Southern States Coop. v. Doggett, 223 Va. 650, 292 S.E.2d 331.

Breach of warranty case. Circumstantial evidence sufficient to create jury issue.

1981 Virginia Heart Inst. v. Northside Elec. Co., 221 Va. 1119, 277 S.E.2d 216.

Defendant installed fire alarm system and serviced it day before fire. System did not activate during fire. Circumstantial case as to negligence created jury issue.

1972 Layne v. Boyd, 212 Va. 751, 188 S.E.2d 86.

Plaintiff had no recall of accident. Circumstantial evidence offered as to how auto accident occurred: sound of car striking guardrail; scrape mark on guardrail 50 feet from where plaintiff was located; and points of damage to defendant’s auto. Insufficient to establish how accident occurred.

1970 Sykes v. Langley Cabs, Inc., 211 Va. 202, 176 S.E.2d 417.

Negligence cannot be presumed from mere happening of accident. Negligence of defendants may be established by circumstantial evidence. Not necessary for plaintiff to negate every theory or possibility that accident occurred in some manner that would relieve defendant of liability.

1950 Esso Std. Oil Co. v. Stewart, 190 Va. 949, 59 S.E.2d 67.

Fact cannot be established by circumstantial evidence that is perfectly consistent with direct, uncontradicted, reasonable, and unimpeached testimony that fact does not exist.

1947 Vaughn & Spears v. Huff, 186 Va. 144, 41 S.E.2d 482.

Evidence, although circumstantial, was sufficient in this hit and run case to present jury issue that defendant was driver of auto.

1944 Richter v. Seawell, 183 Va. 379, 32 S.E.2d 62.

Gross negligence as well as simple negligence may be proven by circumstantial evidence.