Tort Law

Brien Roche Law > Tort Law Resources > Tort Case Law > Tort Law Cases – P > Photographs-Cases Summarized By Accident Attorney

Photographs-Cases Summarized By Accident Attorney

Fairfax Injury Lawyer Brien Roche Summarizes Cases Dealing with Photographs.

Brien Roche

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 Photographs.For more information about photographs generally see the pages on Wikipedia.


1999 Virginia Elec. & Power Co. v. Dungee, 258 Va. 235, 520 S.E.2d 164.

Minor plaintiff crawled through hole in fence to get into electrical sub-station. Plaintiff at trial offered pictures of fence showing that hole and others. Trial court properly allowed admission of photographs with cautionary instruction that these photographs do not portray site of entry but they portray general appearance of entire fence line and jury is to consider them for that purpose only. No error.

1992 Brown v. Corbin, 244 Va. 528, 423 S.E.2d 176.

Staged photograph purporting to depict circumstances existing at time of event is in nature of test or experiment and, as such, party who offers such must show that reconstruction or recreation is substantially similar, although not necessarily identical to actual event in all its essential particulars. In this case, witness only testified that it was “somewhat similar.” That was insufficient to justify admissibility.

1989 Lucas v. HCMF Corp., 238 Va. 446, 384 S.E.2d 92.

Party offering photos must demonstrate relevance and lay foundation for introduction. If calculated to arouse sympathy or prejudice, they should be excluded. In this case, trial court required that if plaintiff introduced “before” photos of condition, then she should also introduce “after” photos. This was error.

1981 Jones v. Downs, 222 Va. 25, 278 S.E.2d 799.

It was for jury to determine whether testimony and photographs indicated that defendant’s tractor-trailer protruded into decedent’s lane and whether decedent was speeding so as to create issues of contributory negligence and proximate cause. Photos portrayed vehicles after they had been moved.

1976 Inge v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 360, 228 S.E.2d 563.

Admissibility of photographs, objected to as irrelevant and inflammatory was within sound discretion of trial court.

1974 Lugo v. Joy, 215 Va. 39, 205 S.E.2d 658.

Ruling on admission of x-ray picture is within sound discretion of trial court. Posed x-ray pictures were offered to bolster expert’s opinion on interpretation of x-ray picture of patient. Since posed picture not necessary to jury understanding of undisputed point, trial court did not abuse its discretion.

1969 Hill v. Lee, 209 Va. 569, 166 S.E.2d 274.

Not error to refuse to admit into evidence small photographs of scene of accident. Jury viewed scene and pictures added nothing to what they had observed.

1968 State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. Futrell, 209 Va. 266, 163 S.E.2d 181.

Newspaper photograph which was properly authenticated by state trooper was properly admitted in evidence.

1968 Major v. Hoppe, 209 Va. 193, 163 S.E.2d 164.

Not error to reject aerial photograph of accident scene since photo showed white hatchmarks and white center line, marks which were not on road at time of accident.

1968 Saunders & Rittenhouse v. Bulluck, 208 Va. 551, 159 S.E.2d 820.

Photos of accident scene admitted even though they showed snow on shoulders when in fact there was no snow on shoulders since proper dimensions and conditions were testified to.

1966 Norfolk & W. Ry. v. Anderson, 207 Va. 567, 151 S.E.2d 628.

Damages to crops alleged from chemical poison sprayed by defendant. Defendant alleged plants were suffering from blight and sought introduction of comparison photos of crops showing early blight. Photos should have been admitted as they were relevant to main issue of what caused damage to crops.

1965 Chesapeake & O. Ry. v. Kinzer, 206 Va. 175, 142 S.E.2d 514.

Photographs showing scene of accident as it appeared at time of accident were properly admitted.

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

Photo showing subsequent repair admissible for limited purpose.

1963 Mullins v. Clifton, 204 Va. 515, 132 S.E.2d 422.

Defendant offered photos into evidence with skid marks on them. They were not offered for any limited purpose. In response to juror inquiry, jury was instructed that they could determine whether marks were made by plaintiff’s vehicle even though there was no evidence concerning them.

1961 Wright v. Kelly, 203 Va. 135, 122 S.E.2d 670.

Wrongful death. Photograph of deceased child five months before accident not relevant.

1959 Venable v. Stockner, 200 Va. 900, 108 S.E.2d 380.

Plaintiff offered photo of scene of accident taken three months after accident showing marks on pavement. Defendant testified that they looked like marks which he saw in pavement night of accident. Admission of photos was within sound discretion of trial court.

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

Photographs-Cases Summarized By Accident Attorney

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

    Contact Us For A Free Consultation