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 Following Too Close and the related topic of vehicle accidents. For more information on following too close issues see the pages on Wikipedia.

Following Too Close-Statutes

See Va. Code § 46.2-816 as to duty of vehicles in general and duties in particular of trucks and buses not to follow another truck or bus within 200 feet on any highway outside of cities or towns.

Following Too Close-Cases

2002 Hot Shot Express, Inc. v. Brooks, 264 Va. 126, 563 S.E.2d 764.

In this case, plaintiff rear-ended tractor trailer that was stopped on four-lane roadway in right lane without light. Defendant alleged that plaintiff was following too close. Evidence from defendant is that he saw two vehicles approaching from his rear view mirror. He did not testify with regard to the distance between the two vehicles or that plaintiff was driving the second vehicle. Evidence simply that plaintiff was following a car driven by an unknown person prior to collision with another vehicle does not justify giving of this instruction.

1997 Harris v. Harman, 253 Va. 336, 486 S.E.2d 99

Harris was tailgating Harman for some considerable period of time. This distracted Harman. Jury issue presented as to whether or not this tailgating was cause of accident. It was undisputed that Harman was traveling at excessive speed and failed to maintain proper look out while Harris was tailgating.

1990 Garnot v. Johnson, 239 Va. 81, 387 S.E.2d 473.

Rear-ender. Plaintiff in this case entitled to instruction on following too closely.

1983 Meeks v. Hodges, 226 Va. 106, 306 S.E.2d 879.

Meeks’ vehicle veered off highway to right and then crossed perpendicularly in front of Hodges’ car, causing collision. Jury issue presented as to whether Hodges was following too close. There was evidence that he was traveling at 40 to 50 miles per hour at distance of approximately 40 feet from Meeks.

1982 Dutton v. Locker, 224 Va. 535, 297 S.E.2d 814.

Evidence supported verdict of negligence in suddenly applying brakes, losing control of automobile, and crossing center line before striking oncoming vehicle. Testimony indicated that motorcycle in front may have stopped or slowed down suddenly.

1977 Nicholaou v. Harrington, 217 Va. 618, 231 S.E.2d 318.

Defendant following vehicle driven by unknown third party just prior to collision with plaintiff’s vehicle. Evidence did not support instruction on following too close.

1976 Semones v. Johnson, 217 Va. 293, 227 S.E.2d 731.

Plaintiff applied brakes to keep from hitting dogs in right lane near edge of pavement; was struck in rear by defendant’s vehicle. Error to strike plaintiff’s evidence.

1972 Clifton v. Gregory, 212 Va. 859, 188 S.E.2d 203.

Defendant alleged plaintiff made turn without signalling. Jury question presented as to negligence of defendant in regard to this rear-ender.

1971 Simmers v. DePoy, 212 Va. 447, 184 S.E.2d 776.

Defendant following closely behind co-defendant and did not see plaintiff pedestrian until too late. Jury issue presented as to whether defendant following too close.

1952 Elswick v. Collins, 194 Va. 292, 72 S.E.2d 626.

One may follow vehicle in front as close as is reasonable under circumstances.

1944 Luck v. Rice, 182 Va. 373, 29 S.E.2d 238.

Defendant stopped suddenly, causing co-defendant to pull into oncoming lane and collide with plaintiff. It is actionable negligence when one vehicle stops suddenly, without more, in front of another vehicle closely following.

1943 Neal v. Spencer, 181 Va. 668, 26 S.E.2d 70.

Lead vehicle until such time as he is made aware of following vehicle may assume that there is no following vehicle or that following vehicle is under control.