# Coutlakis v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

> Supreme Court of Virginia · March 9, 2017 · 293 Va. 212

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9873022

## Case

- **Full name:** Gina COUTLAKIS, Personal Representative of James Coutlakis, Deceased, and Executor of His Estate, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Virginia
- **Decided:** March 9, 2017
- **Citations:** 293 Va. 212; 796 S.E.2d 556; 2017 Va. LEXIS 26; 2017 WL 936546
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by McCLANAHAN
- **Judges:** Powell, McClanahan
- **Cited by:** 35 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9873022

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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)

## Opinion text

**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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9873022. Public record. Not legal advice.