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 Custom and Usage and the related topics of product liability and premises liability. 

Custom and Usage-Cases

1975 Turner v. Manning, 216 Va. 245, 217 S.E.2d 863.

Custom and usage. There was evidence that custom of industry was to offer hoists without safety hooks. This does not establish conclusively that due care was exercised but it may be conclusive when there is no evidence to show it was not reasonably safe.

1974 Reed v. Carlyle & Martin, Inc., 214 Va. 592, 202 S.E.2d 874.

Plaintiff testified that it was custom and usage in trade to use farm equipment way he used it. Existence of custom and usage cannot excuse conduct which is otherwise negligent.

1973 Norfolk S. Ry. v. Rayburn, 213 Va. 812, 195 S.E.2d 860.

Any error in admitting plaintiff’s evidence on safety conditions in other shops was cured by defendant’s evidence that standards and practices were not essentially different.

1973 Gumenick v. United States, 213 Va. 510, 193 S.E.2d 788.

Landlord’s duty to use reasonable care encompasses duty to make reasonable inspection and fact that other landlords never inspect is not relevant; it was not error to exclude evidence as to custom or standard used by others.

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

Witnesses testified as to custom and usage of leaving construction equipment on public roadway.

1967 C. & M. Promotions v. Ryland, 208 Va. 365, 158 S.E.2d 132.

General usage of business in given situation is admissible as evidence of what is reasonable and proper to be done in that situation. If there is no conflicting evidence, then such usage is conclusive evidence of exercise of ordinary care.

1965 Limberg v. Lent, 206 Va. 425, 143 S.E.2d 872.

Use of screwdriver as chisel. What usually is done may be evidence of what ought to be done, but what ought to be done is fixed by standard of reasonable prudence, whether it is complied with or not.

1962 Balderson v. Robertson, 203 Va. 484, 125 S.E.2d 180.

Plaintiff presented evidence of custom and usage in industry. This however was not determinative since issue was whether injury was foreseeable.

1961 Harris v. Hampton Rds. Tractor Co., 202 Va. 958, 121 S.E.2d 471.

Plaintiff injured when cable on crane snapped. Evidence presented on custom as to mounting tagline on boom of crane.

1959 Norfolk & W. Ry. v. Hagy, 201 Va. 183, 110 S.E.2d 177.

Railroad crossing accident. Defendant had no statutory duty to sound signal; but in part, because of custom of train operators to sound signals at this crossing, jury was justified in finding defendant guilty of negligence for not sounding signal.

1959 Sykes v. Railway Co., 200 Va. 559, 106 S.E.2d 746.

Evidence of custom and usage were properly excluded in railroad crossing case where need for protection at individual crossings depends on individual features of each crossing.

1957 Hoier v. Noel, 199 Va. 151, 98 S.E.2d 673.

Evidence of how defendant customarily drove was admitted in this action. Plaintiff waived his objection by offering contrary evidence.

1957 Collins v. Smith, 198 Va. 778, 96 S.E.2d 818.

Testimony as to custom and usage in industry is not conclusive.

1956 Atlantic Co. v. Morrisette, 198 Va. 332, 94 S.E.2d 220.

Employee of defendant testified that it was not custom of trade to use checks and that he had never seen them used.

1953 Thalhimer Bros. v. Buckner, 194 Va. 1011, 76 S.E.2d 215.

Trial court admitted evidence of fact that similar item that plaintiff claims is dangerous is in widespread use throughout country.

1951 Andrews v. Appalachian Elec. Power Co., 192 Va. 150, 63 S.E.2d 750.

General usage of business in given situation is admissible as evidence of what is reasonable and proper to be done in that situation. If no conflict of evidence exists as to general usage and there is nothing to show that as to employees, it was not reasonably safe nor as to strangers, that usage did not afford as high protection as would result from any other known and practical methods, then usage itself is conclusive evidence of exercise of ordinary care.

1949 Keith v. Clinchfield Coal Corp., 189 Va. 592, 54 S.E.2d 126.

Evidence of custom and usage is not conclusive as to negligence.

1948 Virginia Stage Lines v. Newcomb, 187 Va. 677, 47 S.E.2d 446.

While usual and customary practice within industry is not conclusive as to refuting negligence. as general rule, it does establish exercise of ordinary care.

1945 Godwin v. Camp Mfg. Co., 183 Va. 528, 32 S.E.2d 674.

Plaintiff’s decedent had travelled roadway in question on several occasions and it was defendant’s custom to have men at railroad crossing to warn motorists. Jury had right to assume that plaintiff’s decedent was familiar with custom of railroad to have someone warn travellers at crossing.

1945 Sanitary Grocery Co. v. Steinbrecher, 183 Va. 495, 32 S.E.2d 685.

Invitee struck and injured her leg on sharp corner of shelf. Representative of manufacturer was not allowed to testify that shelf was of approved standard design when installed 11 months before accident and in general usage in like stores. No showing as to standard on day of accident.

1944 Bly v. Southern Ry., 183 Va. 162, 31 S.E.2d 564.

Fact that defendant’s actions were usual and customary practice in trade is not conclusive of lack of negligence.