Tort Law

Brien Roche

Venue-Statutes

See Va. Code § 8.01-257.

See Va. Code § 8.01-265 that allows court to dismiss action without prejudice upon determining that more convenient forum exists outside of Virginia, where plaintiff is nonresident, and cause of action arose outside of Virginia.

Venue-Cases

2006 Barnett v. Kite, 271 Va. 65, 624 S.E.2d 52.

Plaintiff brought this personal injury action in the circuit court against defendant, a majority shareholder of a closely held corporation, based on a physical altercation occurring near the defendant’s home in another county. Plaintiff alleged that venue was proper due to defendant’s status as the majority shareholder of that corporation that regularly conducted business within the forum. The corporation was not shown to be the defendant’s alter ego and the evidence failed to establish that defendant personally conducted business on a regular basis in the forum and therefore, the venue objection should have been sustained.

1999 Virginia Elec. & Power Co. v. Dungee, 258 Va. 235, 520 S.E.2d 164.

Child seriously injured at electrical sub-station in City of Richmond. Suit was filed in Charles City County Circuit Court. Defendant moved for change of venue on grounds of forum non conveniens. Circumstances to be considered when ruling on motion for transfer of venue include accessibility of sources of proof, compulsory process, cost of witness attendance, possibility of view of premises, and other practical problems in addition to statutory ground of avoiding substantial inconvenience to parties and witnesses. In this case, fact that forum is approximately thirty miles away from where most witnesses live does not justify change of venue.

1998 Meyer v. Brown, 256 Va. 53, 500 S.E.2d 807.

Issue was whether defendant’s seven visits per year to insurance brokerage firms and three appearances per year at business seminars in City of Richmond qualifies under statute as “regularly” conducting affairs or business activity within Richmond. Court holds that it does not. Judgment is to be reversed and case transferred to appropriate forum.

1997 Perk v. Vector Resources Group, 253 Va. 310, 485 S.E.2d 140.

Court on its own initiative took notice of venue problem. Venue not raised by defendants and therefore was waived.

1992 Faison v. Hudson, 243 Va. 413, 417 S.E.2d 302.

Venue objection waived because it was not promptly put on for hearing by moving party.

1990 Norfolk & W. Ry. v. Williams, 239 Va. 390, 380 S.E.2d 714.

Motion for transfer addressed to sound discretion of trial judge and will be reversed only for abuse of discretion. Accident in this case occurred in Roanoke but plaintiff filed suit in Portsmouth. Portsmouth has no contacts with claim. Virginia applies principle of forum non conveniens. Case should have been transferred to Roanoke.

1989 Caldwell v. Seaboard Sys. R.R., 238 Va. 148, 380 S.E.2d 910.

Virginia Code § 8.01-265 forbids dismissal because there is more convenient forum in another state. This statute is not unconstitutional.

1988 Booth v. Bundy, 235 Va. 457, 369 S.E.2d 165.

Trial court lacked venue over auto accident case. Therefore judgment for plaintiff reversed and on remand case to be sent to proper venue. Convenience to plaintiff’s witnesses was not basis for retaining venue in auto accident case in locale other than one in which claims arose or defendant resides.

1974 Texaco v. Oaks, 214 Va. 676, 204 S.E.2d 250.

Trial court sustained plea in abatement. No reply required of plaintiff under Sup. Ct. Rule 3:12. Plaintiff should have been given chance to prove its contention that venue was proper.

1966 Texaco, Inc. v. Runyon, 207 Va. 367, 150 S.E.2d 132.

By entering general appearance, defendants waived any objections to venue.

1963 Virginia Farm Bur. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Saccio, 204 Va. 769, 133 S.E.2d 268.

Action against judgment defendant’s insurance carrier. Plaintiffs cause of action arose when execution on original judgment was returned unsatisfied and it arose where execution was returned.

1962 Hodgson v. Doe, 203 Va. 938, 128 S.E.2d 444.

Venue for John Doe is to be determined as if suit against insurance company. Challenge to venue must negate all grounds.

1961 Dowdy v. Franklin, 203 Va. 7, 121 S.E.2d 817.

Action against administrator in his official capacity may be brought in jurisdiction where sole ground of venue is his personal residence.

1955 MacPherson v. Green, 197 Va. 27, 87 S.E.2d 785.

It is error to change venue in civil proceeding because of mere belief of party or his witnesses that he cannot have fair trial in jurisdiction where case is pending.

1948 Solomon v. ACLR Co., 187 Va. 240, 46 S.E.2d 369.

Venue discussed in regards to personal injury action.

For more information on venue see the pages on Wikipedia.