Tort Law

Brien Roche Law > Tort Law Resources > Tort Case Law > Tort Law Cases – N > Notice-Proof Cases Summarized By Injury Attorney

Notice-Proof Cases Summarized By Injury Attorney

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 Notice-Proof.   

1995 Franconia Assocs. v. Clark, 250 Va. 444, 463 S.E.2d 670.

Plaintiff injured when door malfunctioned striking him as he exited. Plaintiff presented evidence of witness who had similar experience with door two weeks before. In addition, employee of defendant testified that he had performed repair work on the door before plaintiff was injured. This was sufficient to establish constructive notice.

1994 Ashby v. Faison & Assocs., 247 Va. 166, 440 S.E.2d 603.

Plaintiff entered lobby of office building on rainy day. There was a mat inside front door to absorb water as persons entered. Plaintiff proceeded on mat and then stepped on marble floor and fell on puddle of water. Plaintiff argued that appropriate test for liability is foreseeability, i.e., it was foreseeable that water would be brought into the building and the floor would become slippery and create a hazardous condition. Court instead applied standard of actual or constructive notice. Plaintiff failed to present evidence of such in regards to puddle of water in question and as such verdict for plaintiff reversed.

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

Necessarily constructive knowledge must be shown by circumstantial evidence. In this instance, festival where plaintiff fell had been in progress four days, defendant had reason to believe there might be water meter hole on property and under terms of lease, defendant had significant incentive to inspect property. In this case, jury issue was created as to whether defendant had constructive notice of existence of hole.

1986 Memco Stores, Inc. v. Yeatman, 232 Va. 50, 348 S.E.2d 228.

Plaintiff must prove actual or constructive notice. If an ordinarily prudent person given the facts and circumstances Memco knew or should have known, could have foreseen the risk of danger resulting from such circumstances, Memco had a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid genesis of danger.

1977 Roll “R” Way Rinks v. Smith, 218 Va. 321, 237 S.E.2d 157.

To recover against owner, injured invitee must show that owner had actual or constructive knowledge that defect existed and that such defect created unsafe condition. In this case, defect apparently did not exist two hours before accident but did exist at time of accident. However, notice was still established because defect was underlying one that had history of causing dangerous condition to recur.

1966 Busch v. Gaglio, 207 Va. 343, 150 S.E.2d 110.

Licensee (social guest) takes upon himself all ordinary risks attached to place and business carried on there. Owner must not intentionally or willfully injure him, but he owes him active duty of protection only after he knows of danger, or might have known of it and avoided it by use of ordinary care. Here, defendant created dangerous condition on his land and knowingly permitted it to remain there no need to show further notice.

1964 City of Richmond v. Grizzard, 205 Va. 298, 136 S.E.2d 827.

Fire extinguisher falls on plaintiff due to being hung improperly. Notice to defendant.

1952 Northern Va. Power Co. v. Bailey, 194 Va. 464, 73 S.E.2d 425.

Plaintiff electrocuted when ladder he used in apple orchard came in contact with uninsulated power line. Defendant knew of worker’s activities.

1952 New Bay Shore Corp. v. Lewis, 193 Va. 400, 69 S.E.2d 320.

Safety rules of defendant clearly indicate defendant aware of potential dangers.

1951 Revell v. Deegan, 192 Va. 428, 65 S.E.2d 543.

Knowledge of agent may be imputed to landlord.

1951 Jacobson v. Kirn, 192 Va. 352, 64 S.E.2d 755.

Notice is matter of fact and is to be proved like all other facts, by direct proof of fact itself or by proof of circumstances from which fact may be inferred.

1943 Ross v. Schneider, 181 Va. 931, 27 S.E.2d 154.

Where employer should have knowledge of danger (electricity) but informed plaintiff there is no danger, this is sufficient to establish negligence.

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

Notice-Proof Cases Summarized By Injury Attorney

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

    Contact Us For A Free Consultation