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 Mathematical Calculations.
1980 Parker v. Davis, 221 Va. 298, 269 S.E.2d 377.
Jury is free to reject mathematical calculations when credible eyewitness testimony contradicts.
1969 Powell v. Nichols, 209 Va. 654, 166 S.E.2d 243.
Mathematical calculations used to present possible explanations of accident.
1967 Kelley v. Henley, 208 Va. 264, 156 S.E.2d 618.
Witness to auto accident is not to be held to mathematical certainty in giving estimate of distance especially when he qualifies his answer.
1960 Beasley v. Barnes, 201 Va. 593, 113 S.E.2d 62.
Defendant endeavored to use plaintiff’s testimony of distances and length of skid marks to establish plaintiff traveling at high speed. Such estimates as to distance are mere estimates and fact that they are not precisely correct does not render testimony of either party incredible.
1959 Smith v. New Dixie Lines, 201 Va. 466, 111 S.E.2d 434.
Auto accident. Defendant contends that based upon estimates of speed and distance given by plaintiff, it is mathematically impossible for accident to have occurred way plaintiff contends. Given nature of accident and injuries to plaintiff and witnesses, their testimony was not inherently incredible.
1959 Lindberg v. Goode, 200 Va. 784, 108 S.E.2d 364.
Pedestrian accident. Mathematical calculations indicated plaintiff’s testimony to be improbable. Plaintiff testified vehicle was one-fourth mile away when he began to cross. Pedestrian was assumed to be walking at three mph. Given distance travelled by pedestrian vehicle must have been less than 400 feet and four and a half seconds away when pedestrian began to cross.
1959 Sykes v. Railway Co., 200 Va. 559, 106 S.E.2d 746.
Testimony from employee of highway department, as to accident exposure index of railroad crossing and his conclusion that it was relatively hazardous crossing, was excluded because he had not seen crossing himself and his calculations were made with figures furnished by others and not under his supervision.
1956 Anchor Motor Freight v. Paul, 198 Va. 480, 95 S.E.2d 179.
Plaintiff’s evidence was not shown to be incredible as matter of law by use of certain mathematical calculations as to places, speeds, and distances for bases of these calculations were not conclusively established by evidence.
1949 Norfolk & W. Ry. v. Epling, 189 Va. 551, 53 S.E.2d 817.
Mathematical calculations as to speed and distance applied to determine that plaintiff guilty of negligence.
1948 DeMuth v. Curtiss, 188 Va. 249, 49 S.E.2d 250.
Plaintiff’s testimony incredible because she stated it took her as long to walk 20 feet as for defendant’s vehicle to travel 1000 feet.
1948 McGehee v. Perkins, 188 Va. 116, 49 S.E.2d 304.
Based on calculations of speed and distance, conclusion reached that defendant did not have enough time to form impression of accident scene.
1948 Nichols v. Southern Ry., 187 Va. 89, 45 S.E.2d 913.
Plaintiff argued that when decedent was 22.5 feet away from railroad tracks engineer could see him from 675 feet away. However, there was no evidence that when plaintiff was 22.5 feet away train was 675 feet from crossing.
1946 Nelson v. Dayton, 184 Va. 754, 36 S.E.2d 535.
Pedestrian accident. Court used mathematical calculations based on speeds and distances given by witnesses to conclude that plaintiff’s explanation sounded much more logical.
1945 Herbert v. Stephenson, 184 Va. 457, 35 S.E.2d 753.
Given speed of motor vehicle and distance travelled by vehicle and pedestrian, court concluded it was impossible for pedestrian to travel distance suggested by defendant.
