Tort Law

Brien Roche Law > Tort Law Resources > Tort Case Law > Tort Law Cases – D > Duty To Inspect Cases Summarized By Personal Injury Attorney

Duty To Inspect Cases Summarized By Personal 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 Duty to Inspect and the related topic of personal injury.For more information about legal duty see the pages on Wikipedia. 

Duty to Inspect-Cases

1985 Lawrence v. Snyder, 229 Va. 139, 326 S.E.2d 690.

Duty to inspect issue. Water damage caused by bursting pipe during two day period. Evidence did not show that inspection during two day period would have prevented damage.

1984 Norfolk & W. Ry. v. Baker, 226 Va. 527, 311 S.E.2d 766.

Plaintiff injured when sliding door of railroad car he was unloading left its tracks and fell on him. Trial court submitted case to jury on issue of duty to inspect. In this case, railroad was delivering carrier. Carrier’s inspection therefore must be thorough enough to discover any fairly obvious defect that is likely source of danger. In this case there was no evidence that any defect in door’s top rollers could have been discovered by reasonable inspection. These rollers were enclosed in metal roller guide and there was no evidence they could have been seen upon visual inspection of car’s exterior.

1984 Cooper v. Whiting Oil Co., 226 Va. 491, 311 S.E.2d 757.

Case involved leak from gasoline storage tank. Plaintiffs offered no evidence as to oil company’s duty to inspect and maintain gas tank. There was no evidence that company policy or industry practice required oil company to inspect periodically. No evidence was offered to show how leaks could have been prevented or even detected. Motion to strike granted and should have been granted by trial court.

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

Plaintiff contracted with defendant to install fire alarm system. No duty to inspect on part of plaintiff to check or inspect behind defendant.

1979 Jordan v. Jordan, 220 Va. 160, 257 S.E.2d 761.

Wife backed over husband who was squatting behind auto. There exists duty to inspect behind auto when person knows or should have known of potential danger. No duty in this case.

1978 Norfolk & W. Ry. v. Chrisman, 219 Va. 184, 247 S.E.2d 457.

Defective door on railroad car. Defect preexisted accident for appreciable period of time and would have been fairly obvious upon reasonable inspection.

1974 Charlottesville Music Center, Inc. v. McCray, 215 Va. 31, 205 S.E.2d 674.

Defective hoist alleged. Last inspected in 1946. It has been severely overloaded in past, which caused hook to straighten out. Jury issue presented.

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

Plaintiff fell from second floor porch of apartment owned and controlled by defendant. Evidence supported jury finding that landlord did not maintain rail in reasonable state of repair and did not exercise ordinary care in inspecting rail.

1965 Wagman v. Boccheciampe, 206 Va. 412, 143 S.E.2d 907.

Child injured while playing on handrail. No duty imposed on landlord to inspect for such.

1965 Veal v. Nationwide Ry., 205 Va. 822, 139 S.E.2d 797.

Plaintiff injured while unloading railroad car. Defendant intermediate carrier had no duty to inspect railroad car.

1959 Certified TV & Appliance Co. v. Harrington, 201 Va. 109, 198 S.E.2d 126.

Defense of latent defect not applicable where defendant has knowledge of defective condition and has not met obligation to inspect. Case includes discussion of bridge collapse case involving latent defect.

1955 Gleason & Co. v. International Harvester, 197 Va. 255, 88 S.E.2d 904.

Coupling device sold and installed by Gleason was defective; duty to make reasonable inspection that would have disclosed the defect existed. International Harvester, manufacturer, had no duty or opportunity to inspect.

1955 Conrad v. Taylor, 197 Va. 188, 89 S.E.2d 40.

Defendant knew that children playing around vehicle. Question of negligence of defendant in not making inspection prior to moving vehicle was jury question.

1951 Robey v. Richmond Coca-Cola Bottling Works, 192 Va. 192, 64 S.E.2d 723.

Plaintiff alleged failure of defendant to inspect carton that broke.

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

Electric companies are held to high degree of care. Such high degree of care includes duty of making reasonable inspection of wires and appliances.

1950 Drudge v. Cooper, 190 Va. 843, 58 S.E.2d 878.

Fact that item is generally approved for use on similar devices and that this item was inspected regularly by competent employees and no defects were disclosed is not as matter of law sufficient to find defendant not guilty of negligence.

1950 Southern Stevedoring Corp. v. Harris, 190 Va. 628, 58 S.E.2d 302.

Failure to service or inspect coupling on trailer for more than seven years may constitute negligence.

1947 White v. Edwards Chevrolet Co., 186 Va. 669, 43 S.E.2d 870.

Defendant stopped his truck to talk with sister. While stopped, children hopped on truck. They were instructed to get off, and did so, but one of them later got back on truck and then fell off truck when it was moving. Defendant was not on notice that child would be on truck.

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

Car in auto race went out of control. Defendant had duty to inspect track for loose nails that were seen on track prior to accident. Jury entitled to conclude that tire deflated by one of these nails.

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

Duty To Inspect Cases Summarized By Personal Injury Attorney

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

    Contact Us For A Free Consultation