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 Subsequent Repairs.
See Va. Code § 8.01-418.1 indicating that evidence of subsequent repairs is admissible to prove ownership, control, feasibility of precautionary measures if controverted, or impeachment. Admissibility is not limited to this.
1994 Holcombe v. NationsBanc, 248 Va. 445, 450 S.E.2d 158.
Plaintiff was employee of cleaning service and was cleaning bathroom in restroom of bank when partition fell on her. Defendant maintained at trial that there was no place else to store partition. Plaintiff presented evidence that day following accident partitions were stored in different location. This evidence was admissible since defendant controverted feasibility of precautionary measures.
1975 Turner v. Manning, 216 Va. 245, 217 S.E.2d 863.
Evidence of post-accident changes in manufacture of product are not admissible but may be discoverable. Plaintiff had attempted to offer this evidence to show practicality of changes.
1964 City of Richmond v. Grizzard, 205 Va. 298, 136 S.E.2d 827.
Photo showing subsequent repair admissible for limited purpose.
For more information on subsequent repairs see the chapter in the book co-authored by Brien Roche
“I have been a client of Brien Roche for over 25 years and continue to receive exception service. Over the years he has represented in numerous situations including very large commercial transactions, business issues and others. His advice is invaluable as he listens well and is very measured in his responses. He will give you options and the pros and cons of each for you to decide what is your best course of action. I strongly encourage anyone to meet with Brien before they decide who to hire to represent them.” - Clifton Killmon
© 2024 Brien Roche Law
