This page within Virginia Tort Case Law is a compilation of cross examination cases reported by the Virginia Supreme Court and summarized by Brien Roche dealing with the topic of cross examination and the related topic of personal injury. See cross-examination for more information on this subject. For further information on the topic of cross examination see the pages on Wikipedia.
Cross Examination Cases
2004 Smith v. Irving, 268 Va. 496, 604 S.E.2d 62.
Cross examination cases. In this medical malpractice case, defendant physician testified factually as to what he did and why he did it. He was not asked standard of care questions on direct examination and therefore, it was improper to allow such in cross examination.
2004 Stottlemyer v. Ghramm, 268 Va. 7, 597 S.E.2d 191.
Cross examination cases. In this medical malpractice action, plaintiff sought to cross-examine defendant doctor about prior negligent acts and problems with credentialing. Trial court properly disallowed this. Rule is well established that cross-examination about collateral independent facts are irrelevant. The test of whether a matter is material or collateral in regards to impeachment is whether the cross-examining party would be entitled to prove it in support of its case. In this instance, these prior acts would not be subject to proof in support of the plaintiff’s case and therefore, they were properly excluded.
2003 Velocity Express Mid-Atlantic v. Hugen, 266 Va. 188, 585 S.E.2d 557.
In this personal injury action, defense counsel sought to cross-examine plaintiff’s physician on issue of depression when that had not been raised on direct examination. Trial court properly limited scope of cross-examination.
1999 Food Lion, Inc. v. Cox, 257 Va. 449, 513 S.E.2d 860.
Cross examination cases. Trial court on its own prohibited defendant from cross-examining adverse witnesses called by plaintiff. Right of cross-examination is absolute. Trial court conduct in this case is reversible error.
1982 Chipouras v. AJ & L Corp., 223 Va. 511, 290 S.E.2d 859.
Counsel may not ask one witness to comment on testimony of another. Counsel through his questioning may not testify as to what another witness said. Question that assumes truth of another witness’s testimony is improper because it is argumentative.
1982 State Hwy. Comm’r v. Cantrell, 223 Va. 185, 288 S.E.2d 435.
Trial court limited cross-examination on damages. Cross-examination on matter relevant to litigation and put in issue by adversary’s witness is absolute right.
1978 Norfolk & W. Ry. v. Chrisman, 219 Va. 184, 247 S.E.2d 457.
Railroad employees not offered by plaintiff as expert witnesses on direct examination nor did plaintiff elicit opinion testimony from them. Trial court properly refused to permit them to express their opinion as to cause of accident as defendant’s questions on cross-examination exceeded scope of direct and called for opinions witnesses were not qualified to offer.
1974 Lugo v. Joy, 215 Va. 39, 205 S.E.2d 658.
Dental malpractice case where x-ray picture, important to case, had allegedly been tampered with or cut. Court properly ruled that no cross-examination of defendant and no argument to jury as to who caused alleged cut would be allowed unless evidence could be presented that defendant was responsible.
1970 Rakes v. Fulcher, 210 Va. 542, 172 S.E.2d 751.
Court properly limited cross-examination when questions would have given jury impression that facts assumed by questions actually existed.
1958 Basham v. Terry, 199 Va. 817, 102 S.E.2d 285.
Cross-examination on issue relevant to case and put in issue by adversary’s witness is not privilege but absolute right.
