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 Estimates and the related topic of personal injury.  For more information on estimation see the pages on Wikipedia. 

Estimates-Cases

1980 Parker v. Davis, 221 Va. 299, 269 S.E.2d 377.

Party not bound by own estimates of speed and distance nor by statements of opinion.

1969 Powell v. Nichols, 209 Va. 654, 166 S.E.2d 243.

Trooper made measurements at scene of accident. Measurements ruled inadmissible as incomplete. Trooper returned to scene, completed measurements, and testified based on positive identification of marks on highway. Not error to admit testimony.

1964 Irvan v. Jamison, 205 Va. 1, 135 S.E.2d 153.

Plaintiff’s incorrect estimate of distance of approaching vehicle does not absolve defendant of negligence.

1962 Citizen’s Rapid Transit Co. v. O’Hara, 203 Va. 979, 128 S.E.2d 270.

Plaintiff’s estimate as to speed and distance do not convict her of contributory negligence and is merely circumstance to be considered by jury.

1959 Smith v. New Dixie Lines, 201 Va. 466, 111 S.E.2d 434.

Auto accident. Estimates of speed and distance, although allegedly improbable, were not inherently incredible.

1959 Ritter Corp. v. Rose, 220 Va. 736, 107 S.E.2d 479.

Guesses as to speed of vehicle will not be allowed to prevail over positive testimony.

1959 Barnes v. Caluneo, 200 Va. 631, 107 S.E.2d 484.

Intersection accident. Statements of parties as to such distances and speed are mere estimates, made in fleeting moments and related months after occurrence. Fact that such estimates are not precisely correct does not render testimony of either party incredible.

1957 Mann v. Norfolk & W. Ry., 199 Va. 604, 101 S.E.2d 535.

Witness testified that average eye level of person six feet tall sitting in natural position at driver’s seat of 1950 Chevy pick-up is 61 inches from ground.

1957 Thompson v. LeTourneau, 199 Va. 560, 101 S.E.2d 1.

In excitement of accident it is not unusual for witness to fail to be completely accurate in his measurement of time and distance.

1955 Vaughan v. Eatoon, 197 Va. 459, 89 S.E.2d 914.

Estimates of speed and distance made by party in fleeting moments are mere circumstances to be considered by jury in weighing testimony.

1955 Barb v. Lowe, 196 Va. 1014, 86 S.E.2d 854.

Testimony of law witness as to estimates of distance should not be considered mathematically exact. Estimates of distance where events are happening quickly are to be evaluated by jury.

1952 Clayton v. Taylor, 193 Va. 555, 69 S.E.2d 424.

Fact that estimates of speed and distances are not precisely correct does not render testimony incredible as matter of law.

1950 Sink v. Masterson, 191 Va. 618, 61 S.E.2d 863.

Estimates of speed and distance made at time of accident are not rendered incredible as matter of law because they are not precise.

1949 Butler v. Darden, 189 Va. 459, 53 S.E.2d 146.

Estimate or guess of speed not sufficient to contradict affirmative testimony as to speed.

1947 Atlantic Coast Line R.R. v. Gates, 186 Va. 195, 42 S.E.2d 283.

Estimate of distance must give way to actual measurement made by disinterested person.