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 Habit and the related topic of personal injury. For more information about habits see the pages on Wikipedia.
Habit-Statutes
See Va. Code § 8.01-397.1 as to habit evidence.
Habit-Cases
2002 Kimberlin v. P.M. Transp., Inc., 264 Va. 261, 563 S.E.2d 665.
Plaintiff sought to present evidence that defendant’s corrected vision was 20/40, a minimum required by federal regulations applicable to this trucker. Since defendant’s corrected vision met the federal requirements and his visual acuity was not sufficiently deficient to have had an effect upon his conduct, this evidence is not admissible. Likewise, evidence of his habit not to wear his glasses was not sufficiently numerous and regular to meet the requirements of habit.
1999 Ligon v. Southside Cardiology Assocs., 258 Va. 306, 519 S.E.2d 361.
In this medical negligence action, defendant sought to present evidence as to his usual routine in responding to particular complaints. Evidence of person’s general habit is not admissible for purposes of showing nature of his conduct on specific occasion.
1979 Southern Ry. v. Arlen Realty, 220 Va. 291, 257 S.E.2d 84.
Indemnity provision interpreted. Contract not signed at time of injury but contract held to be in effect given prior course of conduct of parties.
1976 WTAR-Radio-TV v. Virginia Beach, 216 Va. 892, 223 S.E.2d 895.
Previous course of conduct may raise inference that such conduct will be repeated.
1958 Basham v. Terry, 199 Va. 817, 102 S.E.2d 285.
Cross-examination as to habits and family relation of decedent should have been allowed since plaintiff opened door on issue.
1951 Danville & W. Ry. v. Chattin, 192 Va. 216, 64 S.E.2d 748.
Fact that it was driver’s habit to stop at particular train crossing, regardless of whether there was train coming, came into evidence.
