Tort Law

Brien Roche Law > Tort Law Resources > Tort Case Law > Tort Law Cases – F > Falls Deceptive Appearance: Cases Summarized By Injury Lawyer

Falls Deceptive Appearance: Cases Summarized By Injury Lawyer

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 Falls Deceptive Appearance and the related topic of premises liability.  For more information on premises liability see the pages on Wikipedia. 

Falls Deceptive Appearance-Cases

1992 Ravenwood Towers, Inc. v. Woodyard, 244 Va. 51, 419 S.E.2d 627.

Falls deceptive appearance.Slip and fall as elderly plaintiff stepped on elevator that was misaligned. Plaintiff presented testimony of eye doctor as to her problems with sight. Fact that plaintiff testified that she believed she could have seen misalignment if looking down did not preclude testimony of eye doctor since plaintiff’s testimony simply statement of opinion, therefore, Massie v. Firmstone not applicable.

1990 Love v. Schmidt, 239 Va. 357, 389 S.E.2d 707.

Plaintiff sat on loose toilet seat which appeared to be properly positioned. Prior knowledge by plaintiff alleged. Jury issue as to contributory negligence of plaintiff.

1986 Appalachian Power Co. v. Sanders, 232 Va. 189, 349 S.E.2d 101.

Plaintiff fell in hole at festival. Hole was covered over by clippings. Hole was approximately 18” wide and 3” deep. Jury verdict holding that defendant liable is upheld.

1983 City of Suffolk v. Hewitt, 226 Va. 20, 307 S.E.2d 444.

Plaintiff walked through unmarked door into dark area and fell down stairs. Court held that she was invitee and she was not guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law.

1976 Bassett Furn. v. McReynolds, 216 Va. 897, 224 S.E.2d 323.

Hole in floor not open and obvious because of lighting and circumstance of when and where hole was cut.

1953 Crocker v. WTAR, 194 Va. 572, 74 S.E.2d 51.

Falls deceptive appearance.It is matter of common knowledge that difference in floor level is not so easily observed by one about to step down as by one about to step up. It is generally held that slight difference between floor levels does not, of itself, indicate negligence with respect to injuries incurred by persons rightfully on premises, unless owing to character, location or surrounding condition of change of level, reasonably careful person would not be likely to expect or see it.

1942 VEPCO v. Thomas, 180 Va. 292, 23 S.E.2d 148.

Water in hole concealed hole itself. Plaintiff fell in hole. Final judgment for common carrier since with water in hole, it looked like pavement.

 

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

Falls Deceptive Appearance: Cases Summarized By Injury Lawyer

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

Contact Us For A Free Consultation