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 Discovery Miscellaneous and the related topic of personal injury.  For more information on discovery see the pages on Wikipedia.

Discovery Miscellaneous-Statutes

See Va. Code § 8.01-420.01 as to disclosures allowed under protective order.

See Va. Code § 8.2-515 (UCC) indicating that either party in furtherance of adjustment of claim has right to inspect, test or sample goods in dispute.

Discovery Miscellaneous-Cases

2002 Jones v. Ford Motor Co., 263 Va. 237, 559 S.E.2d 592.

Discovery miscellaneous.Conversation between Ford Motor expert with one of Ford’s attorneys regarding attorney’s impression on appropriate use of resources in defending products liability case was protected by work product doctrine and attorney-client privilege and was, thus, properly excluded.

2001 Flora v. Shulmister, 262 Va. 215, 546 S.E.2d 427.

Discovery miscellaneous.Trial court abused its discretion by imposing monetary sanctions because of counsel’s failure to produce an autopsy report in response to request for documents. The attorney in this instance could have formed a reasonable belief that the report contained facts known and opinions held by an expert and therefore, was discoverable only pursuant to Rule 4:1(b)(4) and therefore, the imposition of sanctions is reversed. A litigant cannot discover expert opinions pursuant to a request for production of documents under general discovery rule.

2000 Brown v. Black, 260 Va. 305, 534 S.E.2d 727.

Trial court dismissed action based upon failure to provide discovery. No order had not been entered compelling discovery. It was error in this case to enter dismissal. The supreme court interprets Rule 4:12 as authorizing trial court to dismiss motion for judgment only when party fails to comply with court order to provide or permit discovery.

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

Trial court improperly refused to permit plaintiff to elicit by pre-trial discovery evidence of post-accident changes in design. Error, however, was harmless.

1974 O’Brien v. Snow, 215 Va. 403, 210 S.E.2d 165.

No duty to develop case during discovery so as to avoid summary judgment. Moreover, summary judgment cannot be upheld in whole or in part on discovery depositions. Statute passed after case filed but before final judgment applicable to case.

1970 McLaughlin v. Gholson, 210 Va. 498, 171 S.E.2d 816.

Court looks with favor upon pre-trial techniques designed to narrow issues and expedite trial.

1943 Robertson v. Commonwealth, 181 Va. 520, 25 S.E.2d 352.

Statement concerning accident, which is obtained by employer from employee for good faith purpose of being communicated to attorney for advice or use in litigation, is privileged. Statement by accredited agent of corporation, giving his account of how accident occurred and given for use of counsel in pending or threatened litigation, is privileged.