Tort Law

Brien Roche Law > Tort Law Resources > Tort Case Law > Tort Law Cases – F > Full Time And Attention Cases Summarized By Injury Lawyer

Full Time And Attention 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 Full Time and Attention and the related topic of vehicle accidents.  For more information on traffic collisions see the pages on Wikipedia.

Full Time And Attention-Cases

1978 Crawford v. Johnson, 219 Va. 9, 244 S.E.2d 752.

Defendant’s attention diverted for moment by lights of vehicle in median ahead. He never had his eye completely off highway. Plaintiff’s decedent crossing roadway. Contributory negligence as matter of law.

1970 Beale v. Jones, 210 Va. 519, 171 S.E.2d 851.

Defendant testified that because of co-defendant’s drunken condition, he was concerned that co-defendant was driving behind him. However, this did not distract from his full time attention to roadway. No jury issue presented as to whether negligence of co-defendant (drunk driver) was cause of collision between plaintiff and defendant.

1969 Duncan v. Cox, 209 Va. 649, 166 S.E.2d 107.

Plaintiff guest injured when defendant driver reached over to get candy from passenger, took eyes off road one to two seconds, and vehicle left roadway, striking a tree stump. Defendant tried to regain control after vehicle left roadway. Evidence does not support verdict for plaintiff under gross negligence standard, reveals nothing more than momentary inattention, or lack of ordinary care on part of defendant.

1969 Terry v. Fagan, 209 Va. 642, 166 S.E.2d 254.

Plaintiff guest injured when defendant driver burned himself with cigarette ash and took hands off wheel, vehicle left highway, and crashed into tree. Defendant had one drink of vodka prior to accident; plaintiff unaware of this. Rules applicable to momentary inattention and instinctive reactions reasonably performed not applicable. Failure to pay full time and attention makes out jury question on gross negligence.

1967 Wilsher v. Adams, 208 Va. 406, 158 S.E.2d 182.

Driver looked over his shoulder; momentary inattention for two seconds does not constitute gross negligence.

1966 Laughorn v. Eanes, 207 Va. 584, 151 S.E.2d 378.

Failure to maintain full time and attention is ordinary negligence not gross negligence where momentary inattention only.

1966 McDaniel v. Wern, 206 Va. 819, 147 S.E.2d 158.

Driver looked at gearshift momentarily before crash because of problem shifting. This amounted to no more than ordinary negligence.

1962 Finney v. Finney, 203 Va. 530, 125 S.E.2d 191.

Momentary inattention not gross negligence.

1962 Giles v. St. John, 203 Va. 343, 124 S.E.2d 10.

Defendant lost control of vehicle when he looked behind him to see if truck was following. Gross negligence is jury issue.

1960 Baker v. Marcus, 201 Va. 905, 114 S.E.2d 617.

Momentarily taking eyes off road may constitute simple negligence.

1957 Smith v. Smith, 199 Va. 55, 97 S.E.2d 907.

Full time and attention.Jury question presented as to gross negligence because evidence indicated that plaintiff was on wrong side of road due to her own inattention.

1955 Boward v. Leftwich, 197 Va. 227, 89 S.E.2d 32.

Merely looking down while changing gears and subsequently leaving highway is not, as matter of law, willful and wanton negligence.

1953 Alspaugh v. Diggs, 195 Va. 1, 77 S.E.2d 362.

Full time and attention.Plaintiffs injured when car in which they were riding and that was operated by defendant, left highway and struck electric pole. Plaintiff claimed defendant guilty of deliberate inattention by leaning slightly forward to get cigarette lighter on dashboard. Evidence only established slight inattention, if any.

1952 McDowell v. Dye, 193 Va. 390, 69 S.E.2d 459.

Full time and attention.Defendant, traveling 35 in 15 mph zone, attempted to get cola away from plaintiff guest who was in rear seat. Plaintiff protested speed and attempt to get drink. Question of gross negligence properly for jury.

1947 Stuart v. Coates, 186 Va. 227, 42 S.E.2d 311.

Some evidence showed that defendant, just prior to accident, was trying to brush feather away from her eye.

1946 VEPCO v. Holland, 184 Va. 893, 37 S.E.2d 40.

Full time and attention.Defendant’s employee was waving to fellow employee and passed through red light. This utter disregard of duties is gross negligence.

1946 Chappell v. White, 184 Va. 810, 36 S.E.2d 524.

Defendant driver allegedly bent over to clean mud off child’s shoe and lost control of car. Jury question presented as to gross negligence.

1944 Chappell v. White, 182 Va. 625, 29 S.E.2d 858.

Full time and attention.Defendant allegedly bent over to pick something up when car went out of control. Jury question as to whether this constituted gross negligence.

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

Full Time And Attention Cases Summarized By Injury Lawyer

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

    Contact Us For A Free Consultation