Personal Injury Lawyers in Manassas – Verdict In Car Accident Lawsuit Affirmed

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: Defense verdict in car accident lawsuit is affirmed

By Virginia Lawyers Weekly – 1/26/2025

Where a woman who was injured in an car accident argued the trial court made multiple errors that resulted in a defense verdict, each of her arguments were rejected and the verdict was affirmed.

Background
Aleatha Bright appeals a series of rulings from her personal injury suit against Stephanie Pouncey that resulted in a jury defense verdict.

Opening statement
During opening statements, the defense objected to Bright’s counsel’s comment that Pouncey obstructed a proper police investigation by leaving the scene of the accident. The circuit court ruled that Bright could discuss in opening that Pouncey fled the scene but making any follow-up inferences or commenting on her intent constituted improper argument and sustained the objection.

Bright now asserts that the circuit court erred in its ruling. The court disagrees. Bright suffered no meaningful prejudice from the sustained objection in opening remarks, and any such error is harmless.

Collision questions
During cross-examination, the defense asked Bright if she was in two subsequent car accidents in 2017. After no objection, Bright confirmed that she had been involved in two accidents in 2017. The defense followed up and asked, without objection, if Bright ran a red light in one of those collisions. Bright answered that she did not. The defense then referred to a prior inconsistent statement in her deposition; Bright answered that she did not recall that answer.

At this point, Bright’s counsel objected to the questions about her 2017 accident. The circuit court found that Bright’s counsel did not timely object to the defense’s questions about the 2017 accidents; as a result, it permitted the defense to impeach Bright. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in deciding that those untimely objections were waived.

Bright next asserts that the circuit court erred in allowing the defense to continue questioning Bright about her deposition testimony because it was impeachment on a collateral matter. She argues that when Bright denied having made a prior inconsistent statement, the defense was prohibited from introducing extrinsic evidence to impeach Bright with her collateral statement.

First, the defense did not call a separate witness to testify as to that collision or introduce into evidence a copy of Bright’s deposition transcript. Instead, the defense confronted Bright about her own prior inconsistent statement, and Bright then admitted that she previously had said that she “went through a red light,” impeaching her testimony denying so. This questioning does not violate the prohibition on impeaching a witness on a collateral matter using extrinsic evidence.

Second, the trial court noted that Bright had already answered questions about the red light before any objection was raised. Having allowed the subject to be opened, the trial court found “fairness” permitted a brief follow-up question. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the defense to question Bright in this manner.

Contributory negligence
Bright argues that the circuit court erred in denying her motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability because there was no evidence that Bright was negligent. The circuit court, after reviewing the photograph, found that a reasonable juror could draw liability inferences in the defense’s favor, and it denied Bright’s motion. Giving the defense “the benefit of all substantial conflict in the evidence, and all fair inferences that may be drawn therefrom,” this court finds no error by the circuit court.

Jury instruction
Bright asserts that the circuit court erred in denying her request for a jury instruction on a driver’s duty to use headlights because her testimony that she did not see any vehicles or headlights before the collision led to an inference that Pouncey’s headlights were not on. However Bright’s argument is a single paragraph long and it “consists solely of conclusory statements unsupported by any legal analysis or authority.”

“Unsupported assertions of error ‘do not merit appellate consideration.’” Accordingly, the court finds that Bright’s failure to adhere to the requirements of Rule 5A:20(e) is significant, and her argument is waived.

Affirmed.

Bright v. Pouncey, Record No. 1483-23-2, Jan. 14, 2025. CAV (unpublished opinion) (Atlee). From the Circuit Court of the City of Hopewell (Tomko III). Gary R. Hershner for appellant. David L. Campbell (Duane, Hauck, Davis & Gravatt, P.C., on brief), for appellee. VLW 024-7-396. 10 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.