Tort Law

Brien Roche Law > Tort Law Resources > Tort Case Law > Tort Law Cases – S > Struck on Roadway Cases Summarized By Personal Injury Attorney

Struck on Roadway Cases Summarized By Personal Injury Attorney

Fairfax Injury Lawyer Brien Roche Addresses Struck on Roadway 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 Struck on Roadway.For more information on traffic collisions see the pages on Wikipedia.

Struck on Roadway-Statutes

See Va. Code § 46.2-929.

Struck on Roadway-Cases

2007 Estate of Moses v. Southwestern Va. Transit Mgmt. Co., 273 Va. 672, 643 S.E.2d 156.

Plaintiff is struck on roadway by bus. Impact occurs approximately 125 feet from crosswalk at nearest intersection. Plaintiff was crossing where impact occurred because, he says, that is where everyone crosses. Plaintiff further testified that he was about to step on the curb when he was struck by the bus and that he did not see the bus because it had just turned onto the roadway. Trial court improperly held that this was contributory negligence as a matter of law.

1993 Carson v. LeBlanc, 245 Va. 135, 427 S.E.2d 189.

Plaintiff in case was crossing in between intersections, not in crosswalk, and not within prolongation of lateral sidewalk lines. Striking vehicle was unobstructed and as such plaintiff should have seen vehicle prior to impact and her failure to do so is contributory negligence as matter of law.

1988 Von Lubowiecki v. Donnell, 235 Va. 131, 366 S.E.2d 90.

Pedestrian who crosses between intersections must exercise greater degree of vigilance than is required when crossing at intersection. Before plaintiff started to cross, she looked both ways and saw no vehicles. As she began walking, she looked again and saw no vehicle. She then took two to three steps and was struck at or near center line of road. Defendant was exceeding speed limit and never saw plaintiff although she could have seen her had she been looking. Jury issue as to contributory negligence.

1984 Hoffner v. Kreh, 227 Va. 48, 313 S.E.2d 656.

Negligence cannot be presumed from mere happening of accident. In this instance pedestrian apparently was lying on roadway and he was struck. Plaintiff failed to show why and how accident happened, and, as such, summary judgment was properly entered.

1981 Doe v. Scott, 221 Va. 997, 277 S.E.2d 159.

Police officer pursuing suspect on foot struck by hit and run vehicle outside of crosswalk. Plaintiff not guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law.

1980 Kay Mgt. Co. v. Creason, 220 Va. 820, 263 S.E.2d 394.

Plaintiff crossing between intersections and struck by backhoe driving down wrong side of street. Verdict for plaintiff.

1978 Crawford v. Johnson, 219 Va. 9, 244 S.E.2d 752.

Plaintiff’s decedent stepped out of his car into northbound lane. Struck and killed after two or three steps. Contributory negligence established as matter of law.

1977 Virginia Farm Bur. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Simpkins, 217 Va. 611, 231 S.E.2d 226.

Plaintiffs decedent struck on roadway while fulfilling duty to remove loose calf from highway. Decedent not pedestrian within meaning of statute. Defendant had warning for approximately 284 feet and only applied brakes when he struck and killed plaintiff’s decedent. Jury could reasonably find primary negligence with defendant.

1975 Straughan v. Nash, 215 Va. 627, 212 S.E.2d 280.

Plaintiff’s decedent guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law for attempting to walk across highway in front of oncoming traffic dangerously close and in full view.

1973 Schutt v. Brockwell, 214 Va. 38, 196 S.E.2d 921.

Plaintiff crossed between intersections since there was no marked crosswalk at either intersection. This was not law violation. However, person crossing between intersections is required to exercise greater degree of vigilance than is required when crossing at intersection.

1971 Helge v. Carr, 212 Va. 485, 184 S.E.2d 794.

Plaintiff walking on roadway with back to traffic. Jury issue as to contributory negligence presented.

1971 Marion v. Terry, 212 Va. 401, 184 S.E.2d 761.

Plaintiff crossed street between intersections, apparently to get away from dogs. Summary judgment entered for defendant based on plaintiff’s depositions. Insufficient evidence to justify summary judgment.

1969 Hill v. Lee, 209 Va. 569, 166 S.E.2d 274.

Plaintiff stated he was struck on shoulder. Defendant stated plaintiff was struck on roadway. Improper to allow trooper to express opinion on whether car would have made track through mud on shoulder.

1968 Johnson v. Wilmoth, 209 Va. 82, 161 S.E.2d 682.

Defendant, blinded by lights of oncoming vehicle, struck plaintiff either on shoulder or on roadway. Questions of negligence and contributory negligence for jury.

1968 Elliott v. Anderson, 208 Va. 753, 160 S.E.2d 775.

Pedestrian struck. Defendant’s evidence indicated plaintiff was on roadway. Physical facts not sufficient to rebut this.

1967 Wilson v. Whittaker, 207 Va. 1032, 154 S.E.2d 124.

Plaintiff’s minor decedent killed while crossing street after alighting from school bus. Defendant admitted liability: driving with defective brakes and at excessive speed.

1966 Shelton v. Mullins, 207 Va. 17, 147 S.E.2d 754.

Child struck on roadway between intersections. Duties of driver and imputability of negligence of parents discussed.

1966 Cowles v. Zahn, 206 Va. 743, 146 S.E.2d 200.

Plaintiff struck on roadway while trying to start his vehicle, which was stalled partly on roadway. Sudden emergency instruction granted to defendant.

1965 Alexander v. Moore, 205 Va. 870, 140 S.E.2d 645.

Child struck on roadway almost at curb. Jury issue as to defendant’s negligence.

1964 Doss v. Martin, 205 Va. 306, 136 S.E.2d 854.

Plaintiff struck on road while changing tire. Jury issue as to negligence and contributory negligence.

1964 Speer v. Kellam, 204 Va. 893, 134 S.E.2d 300.

Plaintiff struck on right side of roadway. Plaintiff guilty of negligence per se. Question of proximate cause was for jury.

1963 Smith v. Spradlin, 204 Va. 509, 132 S.E.2d 455.

Plaintiff parked on side of road and began to cross street between intersections. He was struck in middle of roadway, with vehicles approaching in both directions. He was guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law.

1963 Spiegelman v. Birch, 204 Va. 96, 129 S.E.2d 119.

Plaintiff was struck on roadway, not at intersection. Pedestrians are required to cross wherever possible only at intersection and at right angles. Even when there is violation of that statute, question of proximate cause is normally left to jury.

1961 Brown v. Arthur, 202 Va. 624, 119 S.E.2d 315.

Defendant’s testimony that he failed to see plaintiff until time of impact, and other evidence that plaintiff was in plain view, convict defendant of negligence.

1960 Wong v. Terminal Cars, Inc., 201 Va. 564, 111 S.E.2d 799.

Plaintiff crossed to middle of street and waited for defendant to pass. Center of the street is not comparative zone of safety.

1959 Sanford v. Mosier, 201 Va. 358, 111 S.E.2d 283.

Accident did not occur in business or residential section, therefore, right of plaintiff and defendant to use highway is equal and their rights are mutual and reciprocal. Plaintiff walked into path of oncoming vehicle and was guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law.

1959 Lindberg v. Goode, 200 Va. 784, 108 S.E.2d 364.

When automobile strikes pedestrian on straight road, on clear day, with unobstructed vision, and no other traffic, then there is negligence involved either on part of motorist or pedestrian or both. In present case court found that vehicle was less than 400 feet and 4½ seconds away; therefore, there was contributory negligence on part of plaintiff.

1959 Swindall v. Fuller, 200 Va. 581, 106 S.E.2d 608.

Plaintiff before crossing looked to her left and right. The road was 22.5 feet wide and visibility was unobstructed for 300 to 400 feet. There is no evidence of defendant’s vehicle being in view when plaintiff began to cross. When plaintiff was at or just past center of road, defendant’s vehicle was 150 to 200 feet away and traveling 65 to 70 mph. Plaintiff then proceeded to run. This presented jury question as to contributory negligence.

1958 Cook v. Shoulder, 200 Va. 281, 105 S.E.2d 860.

Defendant testified he saw plaintiff 100 feet away. At no time did plaintiff see defendant. Plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law.

1956 White v. Sands, 197 Va. 617, 90 S.E.2d 835.

Plaintiff’s decedent struck and killed by car while he was working on traveled portion of highway. Decedent, when car was almost upon him, looked up, saw defendant’s car, but instead of halting safely in southbound lane, he dashed in front of defendant’s northbound car. Contributory negligence as matter of law.

1955 Hodgson v. McCall, 197 Va. 52, 87 S.E.2d 791.

Pedestrian struck between intersections. Pedestrian had higher duty of care under circumstances; contributory negligence as matter of law.

1955 Hopson v. Goolsby, 196 Va. 832, 86 S.E.2d 149.

When pedestrian crosses street between intersections, ordinary care requires that he exercise greater degree of vigilance than when crossing at intersection. Failure of pedestrian to cross street at nearest intersection when that intersection is five point intersection is not negligence.

1953 Craighead v. Sellers, 194 Va. 920, 76 S.E.2d 212.

Plaintiff failed to keep to extreme left-hand edge of roadway. Contributory negligence as matter of law.

1952 Hardiman v. Dyson, 194 Va. 116, 72 S.E.2d 361.

Recovery denied to pedestrian walking on highway.

1952 Whichard v. Nee, 194 Va. 83, 72 S.E.2d 365.

Pedestrian crossing one way street is obliged to look in direction of oncoming traffic prior to crossing.

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

Pedestrian pushing vehicle in roadway presented question of contributory negligence.

1952 Martin v. Carrington, 193 Va. 627, 70 S.E.2d 313.

Plaintiff pedestrian struck by defendant’s car while plaintiff was walking on highway at night. Car did not leave pavement. Plaintiff should have been able to see headlights on the car for half mile. Contributory negligence as matter of law.

1951 Boyd v. Brown, 192 Va. 702, 66 S.E.2d 559.

Child struck between intersections. Evidence insufficient to support verdict for plaintiff.

1951 Lloyd v. Andrews, 192 Va. 41, 63 S.E.2d 734.

Defendant contended plaintiff struck on roadway while walking on defendant’s side of road. Verdict for defendant.

1951 Keatts v. Shelton, 191 Va. 758, 63 S.E.2d 10.

Defendant’s vehicle struck plaintiff pedestrian while crossing highway. Judgment for plaintiff reversed and remanded for new trial. No duty on part of defendant to keep vehicle under complete control at all times under every condition. Complete control is impossible of attainment.

1950 Bryan v. Fewell, 191 Va. 647, 62 S.E.2d 39.

Motor vehicle struck plaintiff. Defendant driver had right to assume pedestrian would take reasonable care for his own safety. Plaintiff pedestrian held to be guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law.

1950 Manhattan For Hire Car Corp. v. Williams, 191 Va. 489, 62 S.E.2d 10.

Pedestrian is to exercise greater degree of vigilance when he crosses between intersections than when he crosses at intersection.

1950 Fein v. Wade, 191 Va. 203, 61 S.E.2d 29.

Decedent pedestrian was struck and killed by defendant’s car. Decedent was walking on traveled portion of road facing oncoming traffic as required by statute. Even though decedent enjoyed statutory right to walk there, that did not mean that he had absolute license to maintain his position on highway regardless of approaching vehicles when ordinary prudence should have prompted him to step aside.

1950 Reams v. Cone, 190 Va. 835, 59 S.E.2d 87.

Pedestrian is required to exercise greater degree of vigilance when crossing between intersections.

1950 Guthrie v. Carter, 190 Va. 354, 57 S.E.2d 45.

Plaintiff was either on shoulder or highway. Court struck plaintiff’s case due to no showing of negligence on part of defendant.

1950 Lambert v. Allen, 190 Va. 317, 57 S.E.2d 39.

Pedestrian failed to take reasonable action to avoid accident. Contributory negligence as matter of law since he failed to step off roadway when he knew vehicle would pass dangerously close.

1949 Anderson v. Payne, 189 Va. 712, 54 S.E.2d 82.

Plaintiff pedestrian was struck from rear by defendant’s automobile. Doctrine of last clear chance not applicable as plaintiff’s contributory negligence was proximate cause of accident. Plaintiff deliberately and knowingly elected to walk on forbidden side of road, and thus actively exposed herself to danger.

1948 Hooker v. Hancock, 188 Va. 345, 49 S.E.2d 711.

Greater duty imposed on such pedestrian than one crossing within crosswalk.

1947 Stuart v. Coates, 186 Va. 227, 42 S.E.2d 311.

Law does not prohibit pedestrian from walking on hard surface of roadway where no sidewalk present, and where traffic conditions do not prevent such.

1947 Jenkins v. Johnson, 186 Va. 191, 42 S.E.2d 319.

There was nothing to prevent either plaintiff or defendant from seeing each other, therefore both were negligent.

1947 Carter v. Butler, 186 Va. 186, 42 S.E.2d 201.

Pedestrian standing next to parked car was struck by defendant’s vehicle which had ample room to left, yet still passed too close to parked vehicle. This constituted negligence on part of defendant.

1945 Herbert v. Stephenson, 184 Va. 457, 35 S.E.2d 753.

Plaintiff struck on side of road. Disputed facts as to whether he was on roadway or shoulder.

1944 Sheckler v. Anderson, 182 Va. 701, 29 S.E.2d 867.

Minor plaintiff struck on roadway. Verdict for plaintiff.

1943 Orndorff v. Howell, 181 Va. 383, 25 S.E.2d 327.

Plaintiff was crossing street diagonally and was struck by defendant traveling at moderate speed. Verdict for defendant affirmed.

1943 Willard Stores, Inc. v. Cornell, 181 Va. 143, 23 S.E.2d 761.

Plaintiff, while crossing street, turned around and crossed in path of oncoming vehicle. Contributory negligence as matter of law.

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

Struck on Roadway Cases Summarized By Personal Injury Attorney

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

Contact Us For A Free Consultation