Tort Law

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 Proper Control.For more information on traffic collisions see the pages on Wikipedia.  

Proper Control-Cases

1989 West v. Critzer, 238 Va. 356, 383 S.E.2d 726.Control concerns ability to move vehicle out of path of danger. Defendant in this case took no evasive action prior to collision. Jury issue created.

1986 Endicott v. Rich, 232 Va. 150, 348 S.E.2d 275.Motorist approached two boys on bikes who had their backs to her, and were engaged in conversation. She was driving 50 mph. Jury issue as to whether she had car under proper control.

1982 Dutton v. Locker, 224 Va. 535, 297 S.E.2d 814.Evidence supported verdict of negligence in suddenly applying brakes, losing control of automobile and crossing center line before striking oncoming vehicle. Testimony indicated that motorcycle in front may have stopped or slowed down suddenly.

1982 Todt v. Shaw, 223 Va. 123, 286 S.E.2d 211.Jury could have concluded from evidence that defendant did not have her vehicle under proper control when she rear-ended plaintiff’s vehicle and did not maintain proper lookout.

1978 Sneed v. Sneed, 219 Va. 15, 244 S.E.2d 754.Mother lost control of vehicle; car left paved surface and went over embankment. No negligence could be attributed to her driving during accident as she was acting in extremis and vehicle was apparently out of control.

1977 Underwood v. City of Radford, 217 Va. 891, 234 S.E.2d 253.Plaintiff’s knowledge that intersection was controlled by stop sign and that he had right-of-way did not exclude him from exercising ordinary care. Jury could find that accident could have been avoided by plaintiff’s maintaining proper control or proper lookout.

1973 Mitchell v. Lee, 213 Va. 629, 194 S.E.2d 737.Plaintiff’s failure to see “Men Working” sign indicated she was not keeping proper lookout, her speed was unlawful, and she did not keep her car under proper control. Guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law.

1964 Irvan v. Jamison Oil Co., 205 Va. 1, 135 S.E.2d 153.Lack of proper control not shown by fact that plaintiff’s car stalled after he entered highway where he testified he had started motor and was in control at time of collision.

1951 Keatts v. Shelton, 191 Va. 758, 63 S.E.2d 10.Defendant’s vehicle struck plaintiff while crossing highway. It is error to instruct jury that it is duty of driver to keep his car under complete control at all times under every condition. No human being can keep his automobile in complete control while it is in motion.