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 Notice-Party Familiar With Condition.
1997 O’Brien v. Everfast, Inc., 254 Va. 326, 491 S.E.2d 712.
Plaintiff injured when bolt of fabric fell on her. The bolts of fabric were leaning against a cutting table and had been placed there by employee of defendant. This was in violation of defendant’s policy. One of these bolts of fabric fell on plaintiff resulting in injury. Jury issue created. Absence of evidence as to what caused bolt of fabric to fall does not preclude jury from finding that injury resulted from defendant’s negligence. In this case, bolts of fabric are not so remarkable a danger that invitee unfamiliar with nature of danger posed would naturally seek to avoid it. Issue of contributory negligence was properly submitted to jury and jury found in favor of plaintiff.
1965 Saulsbury v. Williams, 205 Va. 727, 139 S.E.2d 816.
Dart-out case. Defendant approached truck on side of road where he knew codefendant sold produce. Defendant on notice that there were people around truck.
1952 Northern Va. Power Co. v. Bailey, 194 Va. 464, 73 S.E.2d 425.
Plaintiff electrocuted by overhead wire. Notices of wires had been posted by defendant. Jury issue still presented.
1952 Jones v. Lamm, 193 Va. 506, 69 S.E.2d 430.
Plaintiff injured when board in floor of wagon broke. Plaintiff had used wagon for three days before accident. Under circumstances, defendant could not be held liable, as through exercise of ordinary care, defect was not discoverable.
1951 Trimyer v. Norfolk Tallow Co., 192 Va. 776, 66 S.E.2d 441.
Plaintiff failed to establish that defendant’s knowledge of hidden danger was superior to plaintiff’s knowledge. Motion to strike granted.
1951 Sadler v. Lynch, 192 Va. 344, 64 S.E.2d 664.
Prior similar situations admitted, apparently to establish notice to plaintiff.
1948 Washington & O.D.R.R. v. Taylor, 188 Va. 458, 50 S.E.2d 415.
There was evidence that defendant knew that scene of accident was used as pedestrian crossing.
1946 Mountjoy v. Burton, 185 Va. 936, 40 S.E.2d 803.
In this automobile accident case, jury could have found defendant guilty of gross negligence since there was evidence that car was greatly worn with use, that rear tires were without tread, that road was slippery, that there was defect in front end, and that defendant knew of all these conditions.
