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 Identity of Driver and the related topic of vehicle accidents. For more information on traffic accidents see the pages on Wikipedia.
1983 Stevens v. Ford Motor Co., 226 Va. 415, 309 S.E.2d 319.
In this case, identity of driver who engaged in conduct that was immediate cause of accident was not determined. If reasonable men could infer from facts proved that man was Ford employee, question is one for jury. In this case man was identified as “checker” who generally worked in area where this man was seen working. Ford, in fact, employed checker as performing same function this man was performing. In addition, this man was ordered by another Ford employee to assist in activity engaged in. From these facts jury could reasonably infer man was Ford employee.
1983 Chase v. Breit, 226 Va. 102, 306 S.E.2d 877.
In this case, windshield of vehicle and both windows were destroyed. Crook’s body was found behind steering wheel and other person’s body was thrown from truck. From this, jury could reasonably infer that Crook was driver.
1968 Breeding v. Johnson, 208 Va. 652, 159 S.E.2d 836.
Primary issue in case was identity of driver. Details of injury of defendant were probative as to who was driving.
1965 Tomlin v. Worley, 206 Va. 344, 143 S.E.2d 866.
Overwhelming identification evidence indicated Tomlin was driver. Inconclusive physical evidence which could prove otherwise was not sufficient to present jury question as to this issue.
1956 Coureas v. Allstate Ins. Co., 199 Va. 77, 92 S.E.2d 378.
Location of occupants shortly after impact is indicative of who was driving automobile.
1952 MacGregor v. Bradshaw, 193 Va. 787, 71 S.E.2d 361.
Position of bodies after impact justified conclusion reached by jury as to who was driving car.
1947 Vaughn & Spears v. Huff, 186 Va. 144, 41 S.E.2d 482.
Circumstantial evidence in this case presented jury issue as to whether defendant was operator of vehicle.
“I have been a client of Brien Roche for over 25 years and continue to receive exception service. Over the years he has represented in numerous situations including very large commercial transactions, business issues and others. His advice is invaluable as he listens well and is very measured in his responses. He will give you options and the pros and cons of each for you to decide what is your best course of action. I strongly encourage anyone to meet with Brien before they decide who to hire to represent them.” - Clifton Killmon
© 2024 Brien Roche Law
