Tort Law

Brien Roche Law > Tort Law Resources > Tort Case Law > Tort Law Cases – C > Construction Zone Cases Summarized By Injury Attorney

Construction Zone Cases Summarized By Injury Attorney

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 Construction Zone and the related topic of vehicle accidents. For more information on construction zone issues see the page on Wikipedia. 

Construction Zone-Cases

2007 Commonwealth v. Burns, 273 Va. 14, 639 S.E.2d 276.

In this wrongful death action asserted against the Commonwealth and VDOT employee, it was alleged that they left a two-inch depression in the driving surface that was approximately three feet wide and 108 feet long in the left portion of the right lane. Plaintiff on a motorcycle hit that area and lost control. The public duty doctrine does not bar a claim of negligence or gross negligence against a public employee where there is no public duty owed by the public official to the citizenry at large. In this instance, the duty was owed to an individual, i.e. the motorist in this case and therefore the public duty doctrine is not applicable.

1973 Mitchell v. Lee, 213 Va. 629, 194 S.E.2d 737.

Construction zone case.Plaintiff’s failure to see “Men Working” sign indicated she was not keeping proper lookout, her speed was unlawful, and she did not keep her car under proper control. Guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law.

1971 McDowell & Wood, Inc. v. Kilby, 211 Va. 476, 178 S.E.2d 497.

State trooper fully aware that deep ditch had been dug across closed lane of major highway. Nevertheless, he elected to use closed lane rather than open lane. Trooper assumed risk.

1970 Talley v. Draper Constr. Co., 210 Va. 618, 172 S.E.2d 763.

Plaintiff struck construction equipment left on highway at night. Due to excess speed, plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law.

1956 White v. Sands, 197 Va. 617, 90 S.E.2d 835.

Workman required to work on traveled portion of highway in construction zone is not required to exercise same care or keep same lookout as ordinary pedestrian; he must, nevertheless, use ordinary care under circumstances. Plaintiff’s decedent guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law.

1955 Byrum v. Ames & Webb, Inc., 196 Va. 597, 85 S.E.2d 364.

Barricades on highway not properly lit.

1955 Putnam v. Bero Eng’g & Constr. Corp., 195 Va. 161, 77 S.E.2d 411.

Plaintiff injured in car accident at temporary crossover. Defendant had contract with state department of highways to erect and maintain crossover. Due to weather delays, defendant was ordered to move to another part of project. Thereupon, department of highways erected and maintained temporary crossover. Under facts, defendant owed no contractual or common-law duty to plaintiff.

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

Construction Zone Cases Summarized By Injury Attorney

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

Contact Us For A Free Consultation