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 Physical Evidence.For more information on physical evidence see the pages on Wikipedia.
Physical Evidence-Cases
1984 Doe v. Thomas, 227 Va. 466, 318 S.E.2d 382.
When physical facts are relied upon to overcome oral testimony, they must be established by evidence clearly preponderating that existence of such facts is unmistakable. In this case there was oral testimony as to speed that conflicted with expert testimony based on physical evidence. Factual question exists for jury.
1983 Chase v. Brett, 226 Va. 102, 306 S.E.2d 877.
In this one-vehicle accident two passengers were killed. There was evidence of excessive speed. This considered with shocking physical evidence presented sufficient evidence of negligence.
1982 Swisher v. Swisher, 223 Va. 499, 290 S.E.2d 856.
Officer’s testimony as to damage to vehicles might lead jury to conclude which party entered intersection first.
1981 McManama v. Wilhelm, 222 Va. 335, 281 S.E.2d 813.
While some forms of physical evidence may be strong enough to overcome oral testimony, such evidence must be so clearly preponderating that its meaning is unmistakable.
1981 Miller v. White, 222 Va. 311, 281 S.E.2d 802.
Placement of skid marks left by defendant’s automobile and gouge marks most likely from decedent’s motorcycle supported inference that collision occurred in decedent’s lane of travel and jury could reasonably conclude that defendant was operating his vehicle on wrong side of road.
1981 Evans v. Briley, 221 Va. 1042, 277 S.E.2d 184.
When physical evidence demonstrates conclusively that oral testimony on which plaintiff relies is incredible, it is proper for trial court to remove case from jury.
1980 Parker v. Davis, 221 Va. 299, 269 S.E.2d 377.
Oral testimony is not overcome by physical evidence unless physical evidence is unmistakable.
1973 Whittaker v. Calfee, 214 Va. 301, 199 S.E.2d 525.
When physical facts are relied on to overcome oral testimony, they must be established by evidence so clearly preponderating that existence of such facts is unmistakable. Here physical facts overcome plaintiff’s testimony.
1968 Elliott v. Anderson, 208 Va. 753, 160 S.E.2d 775.
When physical facts are relied on to overcome oral testimony, they must be established by evidence so clearly preponderating that existence of such facts is unmistakable.
1967 Hill v. Thomas, 207 Va. 1007, 154 S.E.2d 177.
Intersection motor vehicle collision. Defendant contended on appeal that plaintiff’s evidence rendered incredible in light of physical facts proved. However, facts must be established by clearly preponderating evidence. Here, questions properly for jury.
1966 Bridgeforth v. Gibbs, 207 Va. 127, 148 S.E.2d 763.
Auto accident case. When physical facts are relied on to overcome oral testimony, they must be established by evidence so clearly preponderating that existence of such facts is unmistakable.
1965 Tomlin v. Worley, 206 Va. 344, 143 S.E.2d 866.
In conclusion, physical evidence which could refute overwhelming identification evidence was insufficient to present jury question.
1963 Weddle v. Draper, 204 Va. 319, 130 S.E.2d 462.
When physical facts are relied on to overcome oral testimony, they must be established by evidence so clearly preponderating that existence of such facts is unmistakable.
1962 Early v. Matthena, 203 Va. 330, 124 S.E.2d 183.
Physical evidence clearly established that plaintiff on wrong side of road and traveling at excessive speed. If physical facts are such as to demonstrate that oral evidence upon which verdict is based is incredible, then trial court is not bound by jury verdict.
1958 Woodson v. Germas, 200 Va. 205, 104 S.E.2d 739.
Physical facts, when relied on to overcome testimony, must be established by uncontroverted evidence or by evidence so clearly preponderating as to make existence of such facts unmistakable.
1957 Thompson v. Letourneau, 199 Va. 560, 101 S.E.2d 1.
For litigant to be barred from recovery, because his testimony is at variance with physical facts or other proof, it must have been unequivocal and upon matter within his knowledge, and so conclusively in conflict with other proven facts, as to leave no room for difference of opinion.
1951 Burke v. Scott, 192 Va. 16, 63 S.E.2d 740.
Auto accident. Physical evidence did not in this case render testimony incredible.
1946 Atlantic Greyhound Corp. v. Shelton, 184 Va. 684, 36 S.E.2d 625.
Tractor-trailer carrying bulldozer with blade extending over center of road. Depth of gash into oncoming vehicle is not conclusive as to how close to center vehicle was being driven.
