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 closing opening statement miscellaneous and the related topic of personal injury. For more information on closing arguments see the page on Wikipedia.

Closing Opening Statement Miscellaneous-Cases

1995 Stump v. Doe, 250 Va. 57, 458 S.E.2d 279.

Closing opening statement miscellaneous. Plaintiff’s attorney made improper argument as to verdict amount in another case. Court properly instructed jury to disregard. Presumption is that jury followed court’s instruction and there was no evidence to refute such.

1989 Maxey v. Hubble, 238 Va. 607, 385 S.E.2d 593.

Closing opening statement miscellaneous. Medical malpractice case. Counsel persisted in suggesting to jury that there was conspiracy among doctors. Counsel’s persistence in conduct, which court had disapproved and instructed jury to disregard, is alone sufficient to require reversal. Where improper remark is made and court takes prompt action to give cautionary instruction, it is presumed that jury heeded instruction. Where prejudicial effect is so overwhelming that it cannot be removed, injured party is entitled to new trial. New trial granted in this case.

1978 Davis v. Colgin, 219 Va. 5, 244 S.E.2d 750.

Closing opening statement miscellaneous. While accident report of police officer was never introduced in evidence (prohibited by Va. Code § 46.1-409 [now § 46.2-379]), permitting reference to it by either party or their counsel is prejudicial error.

1974 Lugo v. Joy, 215 Va. 39, 205 S.E.2d 658.

Dental malpractice case wherein X-ray picture, important to case, had allegedly been tampered with or cut. Court properly ruled that no cross-examination of defendant and no argument to jury as to who caused alleged cut would be allowed unless evidence could be presented that defendant was responsible.

1973 Carter v. Shoemaker, 214 Va. 16, 197 S.E.2d 181.

Defendant’s counsel in opening mentioned that plaintiff had been in several accidents while defendant had not had any. Mistrial should have been granted.

1972 Lam v. Lam, 212 Va. 758, 188 S.E.2d 89.

Counsel should not argue questions of law in opening but legal propositions or contention may be properly stated.

1967 Easterling v. Walton, 208 Va. 214, 156 S.E.2d 787.

Argument to jury that plaintiff had dismissed her former attorney was improper.

1967 Virginia Transit v. Hill, 208 Va. 171, 156 S.E.2d 888.

Statement by plaintiff’s counsel in closing that decedent was “sweet 16” was improper.

1960 Diggs v. Lail, 201 Va. 871, 114 S.E.2d 743.

Defendant contends that plaintiff, in argument, improperly attacked language of instruction. Held: plaintiff was simply responding to defendant’s argument in reference to instruction.

1944 Virginia State Fair Ass’n v. Burton, 182 Va. 365, 28 S.E.2d 716.

Jury was properly instructed to disregard improper argument of counsel. There was no request for mistrial. Supreme Court found no reversible error.