Opinion

Coutlakis v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

  • 293 Va. 212
  • 796 S.E.2d 556
  • 2017 Va. LEXIS 26
  • 2017 WL 936546
Court
Supreme Court of Virginia
Filed
Mar 9, 2017
Status
Published
Author
McCLANAHAN
On the bench
Powell, McClanahan
Cited by
35 cases
Authority
More cited than 13.4%

holding that "because a rational jury could conclude the last clear chance doctrine applies based upon the facts pled and any reasonable inferences therefrom, the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer " (emphases added)

How later courts described this case

  • holding that "because a rational jury could conclude the last clear chance doctrine applies based upon the facts pled and any reasonable inferences therefrom, the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer " (emphases added)

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

**223 JUSTICE McCLANAHAN, concurring.

I agree that the third amended complaint contains sufficient allegations to survive the demurrer. I also agree that the trial court erred in dismissing the third amended complaint because, as the Court concludes, "the continuing nature of a plaintiff's contributory negligence does not automatically bar the application of the last clear chance doctrine."

I write separately to emphasize that, at trial, Gina will bear the burden of presenting sufficient evidence of each element of the last clear chance doctrine to require a jury instruction on last clear chance. Williams v. Harrison , 255 Va. 272 , 277, 497 S.E.2d 467 , 470 (1998). In over 50 years, "we have declined to require the application of the [last clear chance] doctrine" in those cases where plaintiffs have failed to prove the necessary elements. See id. In fact, since we clarified the last clear chance doctrine in Greear v. Noland Co. , 197 Va. 233 , 237-39, 89 S.E.2d 49 , 52-53 (1955), we have not required application of the last clear chance doctrine to an "inattentive" victim. Furthermore, although we have held that a victim is not legally "helpless" within the meaning of the last clear chance doctrine when the evidence at trial established that the physical incapacity *563 was produced by voluntarily induced intoxication, Pack v. Doe , 236 Va. 323 , 329-30, 374 S.E.2d 22 , 25-26 (1988), we have not had occasion to consider whether a similar exception would apply if the evidence at trial established that a victim's inattentiveness was produced by voluntary obstruction of his senses.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.