Tort Law

Rule On Witnesses

Fairfax Injury Lawyer Brien Roche Addresses Witnesses-Rule On

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 Witnesses-Rule On.  

Witnesses-Rule On-Statutes

 

See Va. Code § 8.01-375 as to rule on witnesses; one expert for each party to remain and hear evidence, provided all parties agree.

Witnesses-Rule On-Cases

1999 Motley v. Tarmac Am., Inc., 258 Va. 98, 516 S.E.2d 7.

Corporate defendant designated former employee to be its corporate representative. Corporate representative was also a witness at trial. In post trial motion, plaintiff sought to set aside verdict in favor of defendant on grounds that defendant had not disclosed that corporate representative was no longer an employee of defendant. Under terms of Va. Code § 8.01-375, corporate representative was neither employed by defendant at time of trial nor did he have any other relationship with defendant at that time, he was therefore, not agent of defendant as used in above referenced code section. To accept defendant’s position that it could appoint anyone as its corporate representative would undermine intent of code section. Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial was granted.

1961 Elizabeth River Tunnel Dist. v. Beecher, 202 Va. 452, 117 S.E.2d 685.

While in most cases courts properly permit medical experts to remain in courtroom on ground that medical witnesses do not come within rule requiring exclusion of witnesses, it is only when there is abuse of discretion that such would be reversible error.

For more information on the Rule on Witnesses see the pages on Wikipedia.

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

Rule On Witnesses

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

Contact Us For A Free Consultation