A Carluzzo Rochkind & Smith note: Following is an excellent article by Virginia Lawyers Weekly. We did not handle this case, but it brings up important points your personal injury lawyers should be familiar with. For more than 30 years our personal injury lawyers in Manassas have helped clients with such matters in Prince William County, Fairfax County, Woodbridge, and throughout Northern Virginia. If you have any questions or would like to schedule an appointment, please contact our law firm at (703) 361-0776.
Negligence: Defendant twice prevails despite admitting liability for car accident
By Virginia Lawyers Weekly – 2/10/2025
Where the defendant admitted liability for a vehicle accident, but two juries nevertheless found in the defendant’s favor during the resulting damages trials, the circuit court did not err in denying a third trial. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the evidence required the jury to award him damages.
Background
Raymond J. Vadney sued Ivy D. Wolfe to recover damages he allegedly sustained in a car accident. Wolfe admitted liability and the matter proceeded to a jury trial solely on the question of damages. Following deliberations, the jury awarded Vadney “zero dollars.” The trial court granted Vadney’s motion to set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial, again on damages only. The second jury found “for the defendant,” and the trial court denied Vadney’s motion for a third trial.
Motion
“When a jury has returned a zero dollar verdict, the issue is whether plaintiff ‘produced sufficient evidence to require the jury to award [him] damages.’” Vadney has failed to demonstrate that his evidence “require[d] the jury to award [him] damages.”
He relies heavily on the $148 bill from Commonwealth Primary Care, in which Margaret Esposito, a physician’s assistant at Commonwealth Primary Care, notes that appellant complained of neck and shoulder pain the day after the car accident. Nevertheless, appellant’s own expert witness, Dr. Boardman, testified that medical providers “take the history from what the patient gives you.”
Thus, the jury was not “required” to accept the invoice as establishing a causal connection between the accident and the pain appellant reported. Furthermore, Dr. Boardman highlighted the fact that a “temporal relation” between the accident and appellant’s pain does not necessarily indicate a causal relationship. Indeed, in considering Vadney’s refusal to take medication or undergo physical therapy for his pain, the jury could have concluded that he was “feigning or exaggerating [his] injuries.”
Alleged bias
The trial court denied Vadney’s effort to introduce a statement made by Dr. Paul Kiritsis, Wolfe’s expert witness, to Vadney’s personal injury lawyer after the conclusion of the deposition. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Dr. Kiritsis’s statement, which did not relate to the case or show bias towards appellee or against appellant. Indeed, Dr. Kiritsis’s comments were made after the deposition had ended and appellee had shifted the discussion to validating the deposition. Thus, appellant’s reliance on cases where a witness displays anger during testimony is misplaced.
Vadney sought to admit a spreadsheet detailing Dr. Kiritsis’s sources of medical-legal income as evidence of his alleged bias for the defense. The trial court ruled that appellant could present a version of the spreadsheet showing payments made to Dr. Kiritsis by State Farm, Wolfe’s insurance carrier. But it also ordered Vadney to redact the other payors’ names from that document.
The Supreme Court has held that “[t]he ‘crux of the issue’ in determining whether the evidence should be admitted is ‘whether there is a substantial relationship between the witness and a particular insurance carrier that has a financial interest in the outcome of the case.’” Here, State Farm is the only insurance carrier that fits this criterion in connection with Dr. Kiritsis. And the trial court did not exclude such evidence.
The trial court noted that allowing the jury to see the other payors’ names would be “prejudicial.” Notwithstanding that determination, the trial court gave appellant substantial leeway to inquire into Dr. Kiritsis’s bias on cross-examination. Indeed, appellant presented evidence and elicited testimony regarding Dr. Kiritsis’s financial relationship with appellee’s insurer—State Farm—as well as with defense law firms.
Moreover, the court permitted appellant to introduce the spreadsheet containing Dr. Kiritsis’s documented income from other sources who names were redacted. The court is not convinced that such ruling constitutes an abuse of discretion. But even if it were, any such error was harmless.
Jurors
Vadney asserts that the trial court “committed reversible error and abused its discretion in refusing to strike three prospective jurors for cause” where the opinions they expressed during voir dire “render[ed] them less than indifferent to Plaintiff’s claims.” He also asserts that the trial court erred by “obstructing” his questioning of those jurors and “purportedly rehabilitating th[o]se jurors through its own questioning.” This court disagrees, finding that the three jurors’ statements do not evince a bias that would justify striking them for cause and that appellant’s remaining arguments are procedurally defaulted.
Affirmed.
Vadney v. Wolfe, Record No. 0036-24-2, Jan. 28, 2025. CAV (unpublished opinion) (Huff). From the Circuit Court of Henrico County (Herman). Drew D. Sarrett (Consumer Litigation Associates, P.C., on briefs), for appellant. Wm. Tyler Shands (Kerrigan O’Malley; Carter & Shands, PC, on brief), for appellee. VLW 025-7-011. 26 pp.
If you are in need of experienced personal injury lawyers who get results, please contact us online or by calling 703-361-0776.
Personal injury lawyers in Manassas serving Prince William County, Fairfax County, Woodbridge, and all of Northern Virginia.
