Tort Law

The cases reported on this page are a compilation of cases from the Virginia Supreme Court summarized by Brien Roche.They deal with the topic of judgment and the related topic of personal injury. For more information about judgments see the pages on Wikipedia.

Judgment-Statutes

See Va. Code § 6.1-330.53 et seq. as to legal and judgment rate of interest.

See Va. Code § 8.01-382 as to interest

See Va. Code § 8.01-383.1 which authorizes additur in cases where damages awarded by jury are inadequate as matter of law.

See Va. Code § 8.01-430 as to entry of final judgment when verdict set aside.

See Va. Code § 8.01-465.6 as to the Uniform Act which sets forth procedures for enforcement of money judgments from foreign countries.

Judgment-Cases

2005 State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Remley, 270 Va. 209, 618 S.E.2d 316.

Order indicated the judgment was being entered in favor of the defendant in the amount of $150,000. That was an error of a clerical nature that could be corrected pursuant to Va. Code § 8.01-428.

2004 AAA Disposal Servs. v. Eckert, 267 Va. 442, 593 S.E.2d 260.

Defendant sought to confess judgment for the amount prayed for. This was not valid since plaintiff did not accept the offer of judgment. As such, the circuit court did not err in granting plaintiff’s motion to non-suit the case after defendant’s filing of the confession. For the confession to be valid, the plaintiff must actually accept it.

2001 Shepard v. Capitol Foundry of Va., Inc., 262 Va. 715, 554 S.E.2d 72.

Wrongful death action arising from automobile accident where jury awarded prejudgment interest. Trial court vacated interest and awarded interest from date of judgment. That was an error since trial court improperly concluded that jury wanted to punish defendants. Fixing date from which interest was to run was within jury’s discretion.

1999 Pulliam v. Coastal Emergency Servs., Inc., 257 Va. 1, 509 S.E.2d 307.

There is important distinction between pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. This distinction is principle that pre-judgment interest is normally designed to make plaintiff whole as part of actual damages sought to be recovered. Post-judgment interest is not an element of damage but is statutory award for delay in payment of money actually due. As such, in malpractice action, pre-judgment interest is part of total amount recoverable for any injury to or death of patient.

1998 Advanced Marine Enters. v. PRC, Inc., 256 Va. 106.

General rule is that pre-judgment interest is not allowed on unliquidated damages. Issue of whether interest should be awarded and from what date it should run is matter submitted to discretion of trial court. In this case trial court abused discretion in awarding pre-judgment interest since delay in entry was due to trial court.

1994 Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Douthat, 248 Va. 627, 449 S.E.2d 799.

Carrier is not required to pay prejudgment interest which when added to award exceeds liability limits under contract. Prejudgment interest is in effect an element of damages designed to make the plaintiff whole. Postjudgment interest is not element of damages but is statutory award for delay in payment.

1994 Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Eades, 248 Va. 285, 448 S.E.2d 631.

Liberty Mutual denied coverage in auto claim. Plaintiff filed suit and defendant agreed to consent judgment for $40,000.00 and then assigned judgment to plaintiff. In suit against Liberty, issue of reasonableness may not be raised. Only issues to be decided are coverage and whether or not there has been fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment. In this case judgment entered against Liberty.

1979 Fines v. Kendrick, 219 Va. 1084, 254 S.E.2d 108.

Decision of disputed questions of fact made by trial court sitting without jury has same effect as verdict of jury. Judgment will not be disturbed unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.

1972 Norfolk S. Ry. v. Fincham, 213 Va. 122, 189 S.E.2d 380.

Court instructed jury to return general verdict for plaintiff. It was error since damages were in dispute; where damages or other issues were genuinely in dispute, summary judgment should not be granted.