Tort Law

Brien Roche Law > Tort Law Resources > Tort Case Law > Tort Law Cases – S > Sudden Stopping Cases Summarized By Accident Lawyer

Sudden Stopping Cases Summarized By Accident Lawyer

Fairfax Injury Lawyer Brien Roche Summarizes Sudden Stopping Cases

Brien Roche

Case history information brought to you by Brien Roche, a Northern Virginia personal injury attorney with over 35 years of experience in Virginia vehicle accident litigation.For more information about traffic collisions see the pages on Wikipedia. 

Sudden Stopping-Cases


1990 Chodorov v. Eley, 239 Va. 528, 391 S.E.2d 68.

Rear-end accident. Sudden-emergency instruction not authorized since motorist should know that vehicle in front may stop suddenly.

1987 Bowers v. May, 233 Va. 411, 357 S.E.2d 29.

Evidence that plaintiff slammed on his brakes and stopped suddenly was sufficient to justify contributory negligence instruction in this rear-end accident case.

1987 Harrell v. Woodson, 233 Va. 117, 353 S.E.2d 770.

Defendant stopped suddenly. Evidence as to his pre-accident conduct that would have shown his motivation for stopping suddenly should have been admitted. Granting of defendant’s motion to strike was overturned and remanded.

1982 Dutton v. Locker, 224 Va. 535, 297 S.E.2d 814.

Evidence supported verdict of negligence in suddenly applying brakes, losing control of automobile and crossing center line before striking oncoming vehicle. Testimony indicated that motorcycle in front may have stopped or slowed down suddenly.

1976 Semones v. Johnson, 217 Va. 293, 227 S.E.2d 731.

Plaintiff applied brakes in order to keep from hitting dogs in right lane near edge of pavement and was struck in rear by defendant’s vehicle. Error to strike plaintiff’s evidence.

1976 Riggle v. Waddell, 216 Va. 577, 221 S.E.2d 142.

Wrecker was pulling disabled vehicle. Defendant stopped and was struck from behind by Asay. Negligence of defendant was remote cause and negligence of Asay was direct cause.

1973 Henley v. Davenport, 213 Va. 803, 196 S.E.2d 1.

Plaintiff rear-ended defendant’s dump truck which cut into her lane and stopped suddenly. Jury question presented on contributory negligence.

1967 Bartlett v. Roberts Recapping, Inc., 207 Va. 789, 153 S.E.2d 193.

Defendant’s car stalled on highway, injured parties came to her side; other vehicle came to such sudden stop that tires it was hauling were thrown off, killing one, and injuring another. Contribution principles discussed. No actionable negligence on part of defendant.

1966 Maroulis v. Elliott, 207 Va. 503, 151 S.E.2d 339.

Rear-ender. Question of following too close. It is not necessary that one should foresee cause for which car may stop; but if he is prudent, he must recognize possibility of sudden stop. Liability ensues when injury results from risk or hazard which may be reasonably foreseen, although precise injury may not be foreseen.

1966 Sexton v. Stroman, 207 Va. 33, 147 S.E.2d 758.

Plaintiff stopped suddenly to avoid striking vehicle in her lane and defendant struck her from rear. Conflict as to whether brake lights were working. Verdict for defendant supported by evidence.

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

Defendant cab driver stopped suddenly to avoid rear-ending co-defendant; plaintiff passenger injured. Jury issue.

1963 Baxley v. Fischer, 204 Va. 792, 134 S.E.2d 291.

Co-defendant stopped in right lane for purpose of siphoning gas from another adjacent vehicle. Left lane was open. Phantom vehicle stopped in right lane and pulled quickly into left lane causing defendant to rear-end plaintiff’s vehicle which had to stop quickly. Sudden emergency instruction was properly given.

1963 Montague v. Rucker, 204 Va. 612, 132 S.E.2d 726.

Where motorist has signaled his intention to turn, then no additional signal is necessary as to possibility that he may be stopping suddenly.

1963 Graham v. Danko, 204 Va. 135, 129 S.E.2d 825.

Defendant sudden stopping on highway and was subsequently rear-ended. This presented jury question.

1961 Rushton v. Mountcastle, 202 Va. 521, 118 S.E.2d 660.

Defendant changed lanes and then stopped suddenly in front of plaintiff. Verdict for plaintiff upheld.

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

Defendant was able to see ahead for a couple of blocks that his lane was blocked ahead. He should have known that it would be difficult to turn into left lane because of heavy traffic. Yet he did not reduce his speed and then had to perform sudden stopping. Plaintiff rear-ended defendant. This presented jury question.

1959 Jenkins v. Womack, 201 Va. 68, 109 S.E.2d 97.

Sudden stopping by defendant mistakenly thinking that red traffic light was for him. At most this was simple negligence, not gross negligence.

1953 Kidd & Taylor v. Little, 194 Va. 692, 74 S.E.2d 787.

Alleged sudden stopping of defendant who was rear-ended by plaintiff. If defendant without negligence on his part was forced by stopping of another vehicle to stop before he could give necessary signal, then no negligence on his part.

1953 Worrell v. Winstead, 194 Va. 597, 74 S.E.2d 62.

Sudden stopping of vehicle is not of itself evidence of negligence.

1948 Dey v. Virginia Transit Co., 187 Va. 635, 47 S.E.2d 552.

Bus caused to stop suddenly because motorist pulled in front of him. Plaintiff injured by sudden stopping. No negligence as to bus driver.

1946 Gray v. Van Zaig, 185 Va. 7, 37 S.E.2d 751.

Sudden stopping.Plaintiff entered intersection before defendant and when plaintiff saw that defendant was not going to stop, plaintiff stopped in intersection and accident occurred. Jury issue presented as to negligence of defendant.

1944 Luck v. Rice, 182 Va. 373, 29 S.E.2d 238.

Defendant stopped suddenly causing co-defendant who was following defendant, to pull into oncoming lane and collide with plaintiff. When one vehicle is following another, duties of drivers are reciprocal. It is actionable negligence when one vehicle, without more, stops suddenly in front of another closely following.

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

Sudden Stopping Cases Summarized By Accident Lawyer

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

    Contact Us For A Free Consultation