Tort Law

Brien Roche Law > Tort Law Resources > Tort Case Law > Tort Law Cases – R > Rear Ender Cases Summarized By Personal Injury Attorney

Rear Ender Cases Summarized By Personal Injury Attorney

Fairfax Injury Lawyer Brien Roche Summarizes Rear Ender Cases

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 Rear Ender. For more information on rear ender cases see the pages on Wikipedia. 

Rear Ender-Cases

2006 Burroughs v. Keffer, 272 Va. 162, 630 S.E.2d 297.Driver of a car collided with rear of flat bed truck parked in one lane of undivided highway. Plaintiff claims that she was temporarily blinded while she was rounding a curve and rear-ended the trailer. It was error for trial court to rule that this was contributory negligence as a matter of law.

2002 Hot Shot Express, Inc. v. Brooks, 264 Va. 126, 563 S.E.2d 764.Plaintiff struck rear of tractor trailer that was improperly stopped and allegedly not lit at night. Jury issue presented as to contributory negligence of plaintiff.

1994 Thomas v. Settle, 247 Va. 15, 439 S.E.2d 360.Wrongful death action. Decedent was sixteen years of age. While driving vehicle it appeared to run out of gas. He was able to start vehicle again and proceeded on to four lane highway to reach gas station. En route vehicle began to stall again and he was rear-ended by defendant’s truck traveling within speed limit. Decedent had no emergency flashers on. Issue of negligence in regards to flashers and in regards to failing to maintain proper fuel level created jury questions as to negligence. Question of proximate cause as to decedent’s negligence and defendant’s negligence were for jury. Even if plaintiff is guilty of negligence per se, proximate cause is usually a question for jury.

1992 Edlow v. Arnold, 243 Va. 345, 415 S.E.2d 436.Jury properly instructed that fact of accident alone did not entitle plaintiff to recover provided jury also instructed as to burden of proof on plaintiff.

1990 Garnot v. Johnson, 239 Va. 81, 387 S.E.2d 473.Plaintiff started to move through intersection on green light when struck from behind. Plaintiff made out prima facie case of negligence and burden of going forward shifts to defendant. Plaintiff in this case was entitled to instruction on following too closely.

1987 Bowers v. May, 233 Va. 411, 357 S.E.2d 29.Evidence that plaintiff slammed on his brakes and stopped suddenly was sufficient to justify contributory negligence instruction in this rear-end accident case.

1984 Culberson v. McCloud, 227 Va. 249, 315 S.E.2d 219.Rear-end accident wherein brake failure alleged. Proof of sudden mechanical failure was uncontroverted, defendant was unaware of defect in brakes, and there was no evidence that defendant was guilty of any act or omission which brought about emergency. Sudden emergency instruction therefore was properly given.

1983 Weems v. Blalock, 226 Va. 304, 309 S.E.2d 302.Plaintiff was passenger in car that was rear-ended. Her car was stopped or nearly stopped at time of accident. Court held that when plaintiff’s evidence showed that car in which she was riding was struck from rear while stopped or nearly stopped that she made prima facie case of negligence, and burden of going forward then shifted to defendant.

1982 Wells v. McMahon, 223 Va. 192, 288 S.E.2d 439.Rear-ender. Case remanded for new trial where trial court erred in determining as matter of law that defendant was negligent in failing to avoid collision and that plaintiff was free of contributory negligence in stopping on highway.

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.

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.

1978 Carolina Coach Co. v. Starchia, 219 Va. 135, 244 S.E.2d 788.Bus rear-ended auto that pulled at low speed from shoulder. Jury question regarding signals and sudden emergency.

1976 Lerwill v. Regent Van & Storage, Inc., 217 Va. 490, 229 S.E.2d 880.Rear ender.Plaintiff struck in rear by defendant while momentarily stopped to make left turn. Rules not to obstruct highway and not to stop vehicles on highway so as to impede traffic not applicable. Degrees of contributory negligence discussed.

1976 Semones v. Johnson, 217 Va. 293, 227 S.E.2d 731.Plaintiff applied brakes to keep from hitting dogs in right lane near edge of pavement; struck in rear by defendant’s vehicle. Error to strike plaintiff’s evidence.

1976 Riggle v. Wadell, 216 Va. 577, 221 S.E.2d 142.Wrecker was pulling disabled vehicle. Defendant stopped because of wrecker and was rear-ended by Asay. Negligence of defendant was remote cause and negligence of Asay was proximate cause.

1975 Brown v. Wright, 216 Va. 10, 216 S.E.2d 13.Rear ender.Plaintiff failed to look in rear view mirror before bringing his vehicle to stop. This created jury issue as to contributory negligence.

1974 Clatterbuck v. Miller, 215 Va. 359, 209 S.E.2d 904.Plaintiff’s vehicle rear-ended by defendant’s vehicle while plaintiff was stopped behind third vehicle making left turn. Court granted summary judgment to plaintiff on issue of liability.

1973 Henley v. Davenport, 213 Va. 803, 196 S.E.2d 1.Plaintiff rear-ended defendant’s dump truck that cut over into her lane and stopped suddenly. Jury question presented on contributory negligence.

1973 John Doe v. Houser, 213 Va. 617, 194 S.E.2d 754.Plaintiff rear-ended by unknown uninsured motorist; plaintiff had burden to prove that unknown motorist was present and that his negligence proximately caused collision. Evidence and causation insufficient as matter of law.

1973 Habers v. Madigan, 213 Va. 485, 193 S.E.2d 653.Rear ender.Defendant struck rear of tractor-trailer driven by co-defendant. Taillight on trailer very dirty, hardly visible. Question of gross negligence: admissibility of result of experiment, re: visibility of taillights, discussed.

1972 Dalton v. Lawhorne, 212 Va. 530, 186 S.E.2d 90.Driver may not assume that there are no cars traveling or stopped behind him until made aware of such by signal or otherwise. Plaintiff has duty to maintain proper lookout and statutory duty to see that she could start or stop with reasonable safety if such movement affected another car.

1971 Lendvay v. Sobrito, 211 Va. 548, 178 S.E.2d 532.Rear ender. Defendant admitted that he did not see plaintiff until moment before impact. This conclusively established that he failed to use ordinary care in keeping proper lookout.

1970 Yates v. Potts, 210 Va. 636, 172 S.E.2d 784.Plaintiff rear-ended defendant. Absence of brake lights and turn signal presented jury issue.

1970 Biggs v. Martin, 210 Va. 630, 172 S.E.2d 767.Rear ender.Alleged absence of taillights presented jury issue as to liability.

1969 Hagan v. Hicks, 209 Va. 499, 165 S.E.2d 421.Rear ender.Decedent ran into rear of delivery truck which was without proper lights at night, stopped on highway, and loaded with heavy logs which extended six or seven feet past truck.

1968 State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. Futrell, 209 Va. 266, 163 S.E.2d 181.Plaintiff hit head-on by defendant’s vehicle that was on wrong side of road and traveling at excessive rate of speed. Second defendant rear-ended plaintiff after he had been traveling in proper lane behind plaintiff at reasonable speed and he only slightly hit plaintiff’s vehicle. Not error to refuse to strike plaintiff’s evidence as to defendant number one; not error to strike as to defendant number two.

1968 Bruce v. Madden, 208 Va. 636, 160 S.E.2d 137.Defendant rear-ended plaintiff while entering highway. Negligence as matter of law.

1967 Roberts v. Mundy, 208 Va. 236, 156 S.E.2d 593.Tractor-trailer rear-ends another tractor-trailer. Jury question as to whether absence of flares was cause of accident.

1966 Hailes v. Gonzales, 207 Va. 612, 151 S.E.2d 388.Plaintiff injured when vehicle which she was driving was rear-ended by vehicle driven by defendant.

1966 Maroulis v. Elliott, 207 Va. 503, 151 S.E.2d 339.Major rear ender. Sudden stopping, following too close, proper lookout, foreseeability and so forth discussed.

1966 Smith v. Wright, 207 Va. 482, 151 S.E.2d 359.Plaintiff claimed whiplash injuries from slight rear ender collision. Defendant’s doctor testified that impact being very slight, he could find no whiplash. Verdict for defendant set aside; new trial granted. This was error. Jury was warranted in accepting defendant’s evidence in first trial over that of plaintiff.

1966 Sexton v. Stroman, 207 Va. 33, 147 S.E.2d 758.Rear ender.Plaintiff stopped suddenly to avoid striking vehicle in her lane and defendant struck her from rear. Conflict as to whether plaintiff’s brake lights were working. Verdict for defendant supported by evidence.

1965 Wagner v. Fiery, 206 Va. 370, 143 S.E.2d 876.Plaintiff going uphill and began to slow down by taking his foot off accelerator. Rear-ended by defendant. Defense verdict overturned due to erroneous instruction on duty of plaintiff to signal upon slowing down. Jury question presented since plaintiff knew that defendant was behind him and there was no compelling reason for plaintiff to slow down.

1964 Richardson v. Hackett, 204 Va. 847, 134 S.E.2d 312.Plaintiff was rear-ended by defendant. Plaintiff was slowing down on highway. In such case there is no legal requirement that such motorist look continuously in his rear view mirror.

1962 Richmond Greyhound v. Brown, 203 Va. 950, 128 S.E.2d 267.Rear ender. Bus stopped on highway to discharge passenger at night. Plaintiff had ample opportunity to see bus. Contributory negligence as matter of law.

1959 Richardson v. Charles, 201 Va. 426, 111 S.E.2d 401.Defendant rear-ended vehicle. Jury properly instructed on improper lookout since other vehicle had given signal to turn prior to accident.

1956 Jamison v. Richardson, 198 Va. 190, 93 S.E.2d 140.Plaintiff passenger in back of truck, got off truck, and was struck by vehicle that rear-ended truck. Plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law.

1952 Riddle v. Barksdale, 194 Va. 766, 75 S.E.2d 507.Rear ender.Plaintiff granted recovery even though he was striking vehicle. Defendant allegedly stopped suddenly and had no rear lights.

1952 Savage Truck Lines v. Traylor, 193 Va. 579, 69 S.E.2d 478.Plaintiff’s truck was rear-ended by defendant’s truck. Plaintiff had stalled on highway and had neglected to place flares on highway as required by statute. Plaintiff guilty of negligence per se.

1949 Davis v. Webb, 189 Va. 80, 52 S.E.2d 141.Jury could have inferred from evidence that plaintiff was driving at excessive speed despite fact that defendant pulled out in front of him.

1948 McGehee v. Perkins, 188 Va. 116, 49 S.E.2d 304.Rear ender collision with stopped vehicle. Jury warranted in finding defendant guilty of gross negligence for not seeing vehicle or flare.

1948 Crew v. Nelson, 188 Va. 108, 49 S.E.2d 326.Rear ender collision with stopped vehicle. Defendant had unobstructed view of vehicle. Jury issue as to gross negligence.

1946 Highway Express Lines v. Fleming, 185 Va. 666, 40 S.E.2d 294.Horse drawn vehicle without lights at night rear-ended. Plaintiff sued striking vehicle and recovered.

1944 Perdue v. Patrick, 182 Va. 398, 29 S.E.2d 371.Rear ender. Defendant stalled on road by railroad crossing, flares placed on road. Plaintiff rear-ended defendant. Plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law.

1944 Hagaman v. Vanacore, 182 Va. 312, 28 S.E.2d 633.Rear ender.Motorist claimed she was rear-ended by truck. Damage to her vehicle was to left rear, i.e., behind her driver’s seat, which is essentially consistent with her testimony that she was struck from behind.

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

Rear Ender Cases Summarized By Personal Injury Attorney

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

    Contact Us For A Free Consultation