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 Signals-Signs. For more information on traffic collisions see the pages on Wikipedia. 

Signals-Signs-Statutes

See Va. Code § 46.2-860 indicating that failing to give adequate and timely signals of intention to turn, slow or stop constitutes reckless driving.

See Va. Code §§ 46.2-848 through 46.2-851 as to signal required for starting, backing, stopping and turning.

Signals-Signs-Cases

1990 Lopez v. Dobson, 240 Va. 421, 397 S.E.2d 863.

Improper for trial court to have allowed lay witness to testify as to meaning of yield right-of-way sign. Duty of drivers faced with traffic signs is matter of law for Court to decide, not for lay witness.

1990 Cofield v. Nuckles, 239 Va. 186, 387 S.E.2d 493.

Motorist stopped in lane of traffic waves pedestrian to continue crossing. Pedestrian struck by vehicle in right lane traveling 40-45 miles per hour. No evidence that motorist negligently ignored approaching danger in signaling pedestrian.

1980 Nolde Bros. v. Wray, 221 Va. 25, 266 S.E.2d 882.

Co-defendant’s hand signal for defendant to proceed with left turn was not actionable since co-defendant not in position to determine if defendant could proceed safely.

1978 Carolina Coach Co. v. Starchia, 219 Va. 135, 244 S.E.2d 788.

There being no conflict in evidence that signal was not given by driver of auto, trial court should not have submitted this issue to jury but should have instructed jury that failure to give signal was negligence, leaving jury issue of proximate cause.

1975 Cubbage v. Meadows, 215 Va. 502, 211 S.E.2d 262.

Signal statutes are designed to facilitate prompt, safe, and orderly flow of traffic. Fact that driver has right of way does not relieve him of duty to give required signal.

1966 Neblett v. Hunter, 207 Va. 335, 150 S.E.2d 115.

Wrongful death, auto accident. Decedent, plaintiff claimed, was caused to lose control of her car when defendant vehicle veered into her lane of travel without required signal. Jury found for defendant, rejecting this theory. Reversed on other grounds.

1966 Phillips v. Stewart, 207 Va. 214, 148 S.E.2d 784.

Traffic light had been installed at clearly marked crosswalk. Evidence as to why it was installed and how often it was used by pedestrians properly excluded.

1964 Terminal Cars, Inc. v. Wagner, 205 Va. 214, 135 S.E.2d 802.

Defendant gave left turn signal. Co-defendant claimed he did not see signal. No evidence that signal operating properly. It was proper to instruct jury that it was defendant’s duty to signal.

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

Defendant’s failure to give turn signal, though negligent, was not cause of accident, where it is evident that plaintiff would not have seen signal.

1960 Standard Oil v. Williams, 202 Va. 362, 117 S.E.2d 93.

Driver having once given signal, must continue course thus indicated unless he alters original signal and takes care that persons thereby affected have seen and are aware of change.

1958 Mawyer v. Thomas, 199 Va. 897, 103 S.E.2d 217.

Intersection accident where traffic light was on flashing red and yellow. Party facing flashing yellow did not have absolute right-of-way.

1957 Richardson v. Charles, 201 Va. 426, 111 S.E.2d 401.

Rear-ender. Instruction on lookout properly given where co-defendant had given turn signal prior to accident.

1955 Garst v. Obenchain, 196 Va. 664, 85 S.E.2d 207.

Signals-signs. Disregard of warning sign does not constitute independent act of negligence.

1951 Mitchell v. Wilkerson, 193 Va. 121, 67 S.E.2d 912.

Signals-signs. It is matter of common knowledge that frequently several signs for regulation of traffic are placed contiguous to one another.

1950 Sink v. Masterson, 191 Va. 618, 61 S.E.2d 863.

Signals-signs. Plaintiff’s car struck by defendant’s truck while plaintiff was making left turn across highway into private driveway. Jury question as to whether plaintiff complied with code that required plaintiff to exercise ordinary care to see that such movement can be made in safety and give appropriate signal.

1942 Richmond v. Best, 180 Va. 429, 23 S.E.2d 224.

Signals-Signs. “Men Working” signs are designed to protect workers and they are not proclamations of danger ahead.