by KPMLAW | Aug 25, 2020 | KPMBlog, News, Profiles, Uncategorized
Written by Henry U. Moore, Esq. Edited by Bill Pfund, Esq. It is not an uncommon scenario in general liability cases for multiple plaintiffs to be injured in one accident – this is especially common in motor vehicle cases. Under Virginia law, each injured party has their own separate cause of action for their own physical injuries and emotional distress resulting from those injuries. However, the lines can become blurred between causes of action when a plaintiff makes a claim that they suffered emotional distress damages from witnessing the injuries to another party. For instance, this scenario can arise in a motor vehicle accident where more than one person in the same car is injured, and one plaintiff claims he suffered emotional distress from witnessing the injury or death of his fellow passenger. These are commonly referred to as negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) or “bystander” claims, and they are very hard to establish under Virginia law. Virginia is in the minority of states that do not allow recovery for solely emotional distress experienced by family members or bystanders in close proximity to the injury or death of another – even if that ‘bystander” is himself involved or injured in the accident. Rather, a plaintiff must show that they suffered accompanying physical injury resulting from the emotional disturbance or distress. In Hughes v. Moore, 214 Va. 27 (1973) the Virginia Supreme Court laid out this rule for bystander claims that is still in force in the Commonwealth. There, a driver ran his car off the road, struck a vehicle parked in the plaintiff’s driveway, and crashed into the...
by KPMLAW | Sep 17, 2019 |
KPM LAW is seeking an experienced legal assistant to join our Workers’ Compensation Group. We work in a team environment and are looking for someone who has at least 2 years’ of experience with Workers’ Compensation cases, who is energetic, highly organized, detail oriented and able to adapt to a fast paced environment. The successful candidate will work with three other legal assistants, but will manage a full caseload of their own under the supervision of three attorneys. If interested, please provide a resume with at least two references and salary requirements to...
by KPMLAW | Nov 19, 2018 | KPMBlog, News, Profiles, Uncategorized
Written by Andy Webb Edited by Gary Reinhardt, Esq. Conventional legal wisdom holds that an owner of a wild animal is strictly liable for injuries caused by that animal. Stated another way, “A possessor of a wild animal is subject to liability to another for harm done by the animal to the other, his person, his land or chattels, although the possessor has exercised the utmost care to confine the animal, or otherwise prevent it from doing harm.” Section 507 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. This rule stems from the idea that, despite taking reasonable and proper precautions, the owner of a wild animal is “exposing the community to the risk of a very dangerous thing” by owning the wild animal and by “engaging in an activity that subjects those in the vicinity, including those who come onto his property to an abnormal risk . . . [t]he possessor of a wild animal is strictly liable for physical harm done to the person of another.” W. Prosser & W. Keeton, Torts (5th ed. 1984). Despite this “[v]enerable common law principle[],” a decades-old Virginia Supreme Court case instructs Virginia courts to take a more nuanced and case-by-case analysis when examining liability stemming from the ownership of a wild animal. The Court examined the issue of keeping wild animals, and injuries caused therefrom, in Panorama Resort v. Nichols. 165 Va. 289, 182 S.E. 235 (1935). Panorama Resort was a hotel and resort on Skyline Drive in Page County, Virginia. The resort kept three bears caged on its property and “encouraged [the resort’s] guests and the general public to feed soft...
by KPMLAW | Sep 14, 2015 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized
Author: Brian Cafritz, Esquire It is all too common that a customer or piece of equipment spills or drips liquid on the floor. The business learns of the problem and places a cone on the floor either prior to cleaning or after cleaning. Despite the warning cone, a guest falls and sues the business for negligence. Because Virginia applies a contributory negligence standard (1% negligence by plaintiff is a total bar to recovery), the defendant almost always has a decent liability argument to take to the jury. However, the real goal is to have the case dismissed on summary judgment and avoid the uncertainty of a jury altogether. Over the last 12 months, several new opinions in Virginia Federal Courts have provided valuable guidance on how to assess the potential liability of these claims, and they specifically point to critical facts to determine whether summary judgment is appropriate or not. In each of the cases, the court focused on fact issues, such as “How close was the cone to the fall?” and “Was the condition that caused the fall the same condition the cone was warning against? Like most states, the general law of premises liability in Virginia is that a business owes a duty to exercise reasonable care to make the particular area reasonably safe for plaintiff’s use, or to give adequate warning of any hidden or concealed danger that it knows or should know about. However, behind that basic tenet of the law, there are a seemingly infinite number of variations in fact patterns that make the simplest concept problematic. Over the years, the Virginia Supreme Court...
by KPMLAW | May 20, 2015 | KPMBlog, News
For a second year, KPM Law is helping feed hungry Virginians through its participation in The Legal Food Frenzy. Created in 2007 to address the growing number of Virginians who are considered “food insecure,” The Legal Food Frenzy, a partnership between The Office of the Attorney General, The Young Lawyers Division of The Virginia Bar Association, and the Federation of Virginia Food Banks, is a friendly competition among law firms, legal departments, law offices, law schools, and courts in Virginia to raise food and funds to feed the nearly 1.2 million Virginians – many of whom are children, seniors, and disabled adults – who can’t count on their next meal. Spearheaded at KPM offices by Richmond attorneys Matthew Daly and Jessica Relyea, the firm has collected more than a thousand pounds of food since its involvement in the initiative which takes place over a two-week giving period each year. KPM donations were distributed to food banks across the state thanks to participating KPM offices located throughout Virginia. Said firm president Chip Kalbaugh, “It’s great to see our attorneys and staff working as part of the greater legal community to address a very real need in our home state.” Since its inception, the Legal Food Frenzy, has raised the equivalent of over 11.4 million pounds of food, helping to address the increasing need throughout the state. Citing rates of unemployment and underemployment, the Federation of Virginia Food banks notes the number of Virginians struggling to make ends meet has been steadily on the rise. Over the last several years, Virginia food banks have faced a 50% increase in demand while...
