Tort Law

Brien Roche Law > Tort Law Resources > Tort Case Law > Tort Law Cases – S > Speculation Cases Summarized By Personal Injury Lawyer

Speculation Cases Summarized By Personal Injury Lawyer

Fairfax Injury Lawyer Brien Roche Summarizes Speculation 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 Speculation.For more information about personal injury litigation see the pages on Wikipedia.  


1977 Reid v. Baumgardner, 217 Va. 769, 232 S.E.2d 778.

Impermissible for counsel to argue to jury amount for pain, suffering, mental anguish and disability on fixed formula of $1,000.00 per year as to which there was no evidence in record.

1976 Norfolk & W. Ry. v. Wright, 217 Va. 515, 229 S.E.2d 890.

Evidence tending to show causal connection must be sufficient to take question out of realm of mere conjecture, or speculation, and into realm of legitimate inference, before question of fact for submission to jury has been made out.

1976 Little v. Cross, 217 Va. 71, 225 S.E.2d 387.

Medical malpractice action for negligence in performing and/or recommending operation. No evidence that timing of operation proximately caused or contributed to cause plaintiff’s injuries. Not error to strike plaintiff’s evidence. To have submitted question of negligence in timing of operation would have permitted jury improperly to return verdict based entirely on speculation and conjecture, without evidence to support it.

1974 Reagan v. Perez, 215 Va. 325, 209 S.E.2d 901.

Chimney fell on plaintiff who was swinging in hammock attached to chimney. Absent showing of previous defective condition of chimney, or showing that “apparently harmless” similar structure is likely to fall when subjected to weight of children in attached hammock, jury would have been left to speculate.

1974 Lugo v. Joy, 215 Va. 39, 205 S.E.2d 658.

Cut in x-ray picture inferred and inference further was that defendant had caused cut; without further evidence, no cross-examination and no argument to jury that cut was caused by defendant.

1973 Williams v. Peters, 213 Va. 652, 194 S.E.2d 713.

Motor vehicle case; defendant’s testimony exonerated him. Testimony of plaintiff’s witnesses was vague, rambling, confused and contradictory. Plaintiff was left with no evidence as to what caused collision to occur.

1973 John Doe v. Houser, 213 Va. 617, 194 S.E.2d 754.

Plaintiff rear-ended by unknown uninsured motorist; plaintiff failed to prove negligence and causation. Verdict cannot be presumed from mere happening of accident.

1973 Butler v. Washington Refrig. Serv. Co., 213 Va. 461, 193 S.E.2d 781.

Plaintiff injured while sweeping under refrigerator compressor that had protective shield missing. Proximate cause not shown; judgment for defendant affirmed. Evidence of negligent acts or omissions was speculation only.

1971 McFadden v. Garrett, 211 Va. 680, 179 S.E.2d 482.

Negligence cannot be presumed from mere happening of accident. Car left highway and struck tree for unexplained reason.

1970 Sykes v. Langley Cabs, Inc., 211 Va. 202, 176 S.E.2d 417.

Negligence cannot be presumed from mere happening of accident. Not necessary for plaintiff to negate every theory or possibility that accident occurred in some manner that would relieve defendant of liability.

1968 Virginia Stage Lines v. Brockman Chevrolet, Inc., 209 Va. 188, 163 S.E.2d 148.

Mere happening of accident will not be basis for presumption of negligence. Nor can verdict be based on conjecture, speculation, or random judgment. Plaintiff established negligence per se on part of defendant but failed to show proximate cause.

1966 Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. v. Yeatts, 207 Va. 534, 151 S.E.2d 400.

Bottle exploded in supermarket injuring plaintiff. Final judgment for defendant. It is incumbent on plaintiff who alleges negligence to show why and how accident happened, and if that is left to conjecture, speculation, or random judgment, he cannot recover.

1949 Edwards v. Hobson, 189 Va. 948, 55 S.E.2d 857.

Where evidence shows that any one of several things may have caused injury, some of which defendant is responsible and some of which defendant is not responsible, and leaves it uncertain as to what was real cause, then plaintiff has failed to establish his case.

1943 VEPCO v. Courtney, 182 Va. 175, 27 S.E.2d 917.

Instruction was not supported by evidence and thus permitted speculation and conjecture on part of jury.

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

Speculation Cases Summarized By Personal Injury Lawyer

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

    Contact Us For A Free Consultation