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 Struck on Shoulder. For more information on traffic collisions see the pages on Wikipedia.

Pedestrian Struck On Shoulder-Cases

1972 Layne v. Boyd, 212 Va. 751, 188 S.E.2d 86.

Plaintiff allegedly sitting on guardrail when struck. Insufficient evidence to support this allegation.

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.

Plaintiff insisted she was struck on shoulder. Defendant insisted she was struck on roadway. Questions of negligence and contributory negligence for jury.

1961 Whitfield v. Dunn, 202 Va. 472, 117 S.E.2d 710.

Question of whether pedestrian walking on right hand shoulder exercised proper judgment in not stepping into ditch on side of road when he saw lights of car approaching from his rear was jury question.

1959 Bayne v. Tharpe, 201 Va. 484, 111 S.E.2d 816.

Plaintiff was walking on right shoulder, leading mule, which was on highway. Defendant struck mule, which then hit plaintiff. Plaintiff was not pedestrian and therefore not obliged to walk facing traffic.

1959 Russell v. Hammond, 200 Va. 600, 106 S.E.2d 626.

Pedestrian walking on right side of road with back to traffic. This was proximate cause of accident.

1955 Greear v. Noland Co., 197 Va. 233, 89 S.E.2d 49.

Plaintiff struck on shoulder of road by defendant’s vehicle while plaintiff conversed with persons in vehicle parked on shoulder. Not relevant or material that vehicle could have been parked further off road.

1949 Rhoades v. Meadows, 189 Va. 558, 54 S.E.2d 123.

Plaintiff struck by vehicle on shoulder of road after crossing. Defendant held to be negligent under circumstances. If he had been coming at lawful speed, as plaintiff had right to suppose, plaintiff would have had sufficient time to cross remaining width of pavement in safety.

1948 Crouse v. Pugh, 188 Va. 156, 49 S.E.2d 421.

Factual dispute as to precisely where plaintiff was struck.

1947 Vaughn & Spears v. Huff, 186 Va. 144, 41 S.E.2d 482.

Mere fact that pedestrian was struck is not sufficient to establish negligence even in this hit and run case where evidence was sufficient to create jury issue as to defendant being driver of car that struck plaintiff.