Tort Law

Brien Roche Law > Tort Law Resources > Tort Case Law > Tort Law Cases – S > Excessive Speed Cases Summarized By Injury Lawyer

Excessive Speed Cases Summarized By Injury Lawyer

Fairfax Injury Lawyer Brien Roche Summarizes Excessive Speed 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 Excessive Speed.For more information on traffic collisions see the pages on Wikipedia.  


Excessive Speed-Statutes

See Va. Code §§ 46.2-861 and 46.2-862 as to excess speed constituting reckless driving.

Excessive Speed-Cases

1992 Faison v. Hudson, 243 Va. 397, 417 S.E.2d 305.

Driver approaching congested intersection. No evidence of exceeding speed limit. Question of whether speed reasonable under circumstances properly submitted to jury.

1990 Luck v. Miller, 240 Va. 445, 397 S.E.2d 869.

Accident occurred while it was raining, dark and within one-tenth of a mile from major intersection. Even though plaintiff was proceeding under the speed limit, from this evidence jury could reasonably find that plaintiff exceeded reasonable speed.

1989 West v. Critzer, 238 Va. 356, 383 S.E.2d 726.

Posted speed limit does not determine whether speed is reasonable under circumstances. Here defendant approached intersection with flashing yellow lights. Plaintiff moved slowly into his path. He never decreased speed from 55 mph. Jury issue as to reasonable speed.

1983 Hogan v. Carter, 226 Va. 361, 310 S.E.2d 666.

Court ruled that defendant was guilty of negligence as matter of law because of excessive speed. Excessive speed at one place on highway is not sufficient standing alone to justify inference of excessive speed at another place. Court has, however, never held that this rule is absolute or that proof of speed at moment of impact must be conclusive. In this case evidence was that defendant was speeding approximately 450 feet away from point of impact.

1980 Coleman v. Blankenship Oil Corp., 221 Va. 124, 267 S.E.2d 143.

Plaintiff hit patch of oil on road and skidded. Question of reasonable speed for jury.

1979 Petress v. Seay, 219 Va. 1053, 254 S.E.2d 91.

Instruction told jury that defendant was negligent for exceeding speed limit as he admitted he was traveling at 60 mph at time of accident, and it left question of proximate cause for them to determine.

1977 Mayo v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 644, 238 S.E.2d 831.

Defendant in this criminal case was speeding in residential area heavily travelled by vehicles and pedestrians and was changing lanes erratically. Conviction for involuntary manslaughter upheld.

1976 Duffer v. Newman, 217 Va. 415, 229 S.E.2d 860.

Defendant’s vehicle left highway injuring plaintiff’s decedent. Only evidence presented was excessive speed. No evidence as to what caused defendant to lose control. Plaintiff failed to meet burden.

1975 Clark v. Clark, 216 Va. 539, 221 S.E.2d 123.

Speed of defendant, inattentiveness of defendant, and consumption of alcohol presented jury issue as to gross negligence.

1973 Williams v, Vaughan, 214 Va. 307, 199 S.E.2d 515.

Speed within speed limit on hazardous road may be excessive.

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.

1972 Cline v. Larry’s Elec. Co., 213 Va. 143, 191 S.E.2d 231.

Plaintiff attempted to pass defendants’ vehicles in 25 mph residential zone; plaintiff came about to pass, one of defendants turned left into plaintiff’s vehicle. Jury verdict for defendants affirmed.

1970 Crawford & Perdue v. Quarterman, 210 Va. 598, 172 S.E.2d 739.

Evidence indicated speed of co-defendant was 55 to 85 mph. Although this may have been negligent, it was not cause of accident.

1970 Motley v. Doe, 210 Va. 428, 171 S.E.2d 818.

Speed in excess of maximum safe speed. Jury issue presented as to whether this is negligence.

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 Sturman v. Johnson, 209 Va. 227, 163 S.E.2d 770.

Plaintiff guest injured when defendant driver’s vehicle left highway. Evidence that defendant was awake and traveling in vicinity of 90 mph; right to assume under circumstances, until contrary appears, that vehicle proceeding at particular speed because driver voluntarily caused it to do so. Error to strike plaintiff’s evidence as to either gross or ordinary negligence.

1967 Goodwin & Reed v. Gilman, 208 Va. 422, 157 S.E.2d 912.

No evidence speed limit exceeded. No error to instruct that duty to operate at reasonable speed. Determination of whether or not certain speed is excessive has to be, in large measure, governed by conditions then existing and not necessarily by posted speed limit.

1967 Tyree v. Lariew, 208 Va. 382, 158 S.E.2d 140.

Plaintiff going 30 to 35 mph. Minimum safe speed 25. Speed limit 55. Contributory negligence was jury issue.

1967 Hill v. Thomas, 207 Va. 1007, 154 S.E.2d 177.

Intersection accident. Plaintiff’s vehicle struck by defendant’s while her vehicle was attempting left turn. Conflicting evidence of excessive speed by defendant and sudden turn of plaintiff driver. Plaintiff’s evidence not rendered incredible in light of physical facts. Question properly for jury.

1966 Stoner v. Robertson, 207 Va. 633, 151 S.E.2d 363.

Gross negligence admitted by defendant who was guilty of excessive speed, on wrong side of crooked and hilly road, and he had been drinking. Although fellow passenger requested and was allowed to leave vehicle, plaintiff’s decedent, by remaining in vehicle, assumed risk as matter of law.

1966 Guill v. Aaron, 207 Va. 393, 150 S.E.2d 95.

Plaintiff guest injured when defendant sped up and hit icy spot in road and then struck embankment simple negligence at best.

1963 Mills v. Wells, 204 Va. 173, 129 S.E.2d 705.

Determination of whether or not certain speed is excessive has to be in large measure governed by conditions then existing and not necessarily by posted speed limit.

1962 Richmond Greyhound Lines v. Brown, 203 Va. 950, 128 S.E.2d 267.

Plaintiff not exceeding speed limit. He failed to reduce speed after being alerted that dangerous condition might exist ahead. Contributory negligence as matter of law.

1962 Dugroo v. Garrett, 203 Va. 918, 128 S.E.2d 303.

Defendant not exceeding speed limit but speed may have been unreasonable under circumstances. Jury issue.

1960 Hayes Richlands Metal Prods. v. Honaker, 201 Va. 912, 114 S.E.2d 622.

Plaintiff saw truck give left turn signal 600 feet away. Plaintiff speeded up to 70 to 80 mph. Contributory negligence as matter of law.

1952 Burton v. Oldfield, 194 Va. 43, 72 S.E.2d 357.

Jury allowed to conclude that traveling at maximum speed limit on hazy night was negligent.

1952 McDowell v. Dye, 193 Va. 390, 69 S.E.2d 459.

Defendant driving 35 mph in 15 mph zone and attempted to get cola away from plaintiff guest who was in rear seat. Plaintiff warned of speed. Question of gross negligence for jury.

1950 Caldwell v. Parker, 191 Va. 471, 62 S.E.2d 34.

Plaintiff’s vehicle struck by another vehicle greatly exceeding speed limit at busy intersection. It was not incumbent upon plaintiff to ensure his safe passage along highway from dangers of speeding car that may well have been beyond range of reasonable vision.

1950 Interstate Veneer Co. v. Edwards, 191 Va. 107, 60 S.E.2d 4.

Defendant’s truck crossed over to wrong side of road, struck vehicle owned and operated by plaintiff’s decedent. Evidence of excessive speed. Defendant claimed accident was due to steering mechanism failure. Jury question presented, and jury could conclude from evidence that despite any steering problem, defendant’s excessive speed caused or contributed to injury.

1949 Davis v. Webb, 189 Va. 80, 52 S.E.2d 141.

Proper speed is to large measure governed by conditions.

1947 Masters v. Cardi, 186 Va. 261, 42 S.E.2d 203.

Defendant was exceeding 35 mph speed limit in heavy rain. Issue of whether this was cause of accident was for jury.

1946 Dinges v. Hannah, 185 Va. 744, 40 S.E.2d 179.

Defendant was exceeding speed limit of 35 mph. This did not constitute gross negligence.

1946 Nelson v. Dayton, 184 Va. 754, 36 S.E.2d 535.

One who drives faster than he should into cloud of dust, snowstorm, or in face of blinding headlights is required to exercise increased diligence to avoid injury.

1944 Hagaman v. Vanacore, 182 Va. 312, 28 S.E.2d 633.

Excessive speed of truck was alleged to be cause of accident. Defendant driving tractor-trailer down hill in rain; evidence of lack of due care.

1944 Hague v. Valentine, 182 Va. 256, 28 S.E.2d 720.

Excessive speed of truck was alleged to be cause of accident.

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

Excessive Speed Cases Summarized By Injury Lawyer

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

    Contact Us For A Free Consultation