A skateboarder who watched a vehicle heading toward a crosswalk but kept on skating could not recover for his arm and wrist injuries because of his contributory negligence.
On Feb. 17, the Supreme Court of Virginia upheld a Norfolk Circuit Court’s decision striking the skater’s personal injury claim because he continued across a crosswalk as a vehicle was turning into the crosswalk from a cross-street.
Viewing the case from the plaintiff’s perspective, the evidence showed the skater watched the driver’s car the “entire time” as he rode his skateboard through the crosswalk. Even though he did not see the driver apply her brakes or slow down, Tyler Slawson “made no attempt to avoid a collision by stopping,” because he thought the driver would stop before reaching the crosswalk, the Supreme Court said in Slawson v. Gough, No. 110169.
Justices S. Bernard Goodwyn and LeRoy F. Millette Jr. dissented from the decision for the defendant in Slawson.
In a second unpublished order released on Feb. 17, a defendant who said he was prejudiced at sentencing by the prosecutor’s notebook full of letters and emails lost his appeal.
The notebook contained letters written by the victim’s family members, as well as friends and acquaintances of defendant Herbert Price’s family.
But the high court dismissed Price’s appeal because of how he framed his assignment of error. In the trial court, Price objected that the letters and emails were not proper “victim impact testimony.”
As the communications were not “testimony” governed by Va. Code § 19.2-295.3, Price should have described the letters and emails as “victim impact evidence,” the high court said in its three-page unpublished order in Price v. Commonwealth, No. 111135.
The Price decision is another variation on an important theme in appellate practice: Be clear and consistent in articulating the precise challenge you are making to a trial court ruling.