Virginia Injury Lawyer Blog

On October 6, 2006, the Virginia Supreme Court reinstated a Fairfax County jury's $1,800,000 verdict in a mild traumatic brain injury case that I tried in August of 2005. In Wu v. Wirthlin Worldwide, the trial court had found after the verdict that at the time of this accident Defendant Wirthlin's employee was not within the scope of employment because at the time of this accident she was doing nothing more than merely traveling to work.

The Supreme Court rejected the trial court's analysis that an employer cannot be vicariously liable when the employee is traveling to work at the time of the accident; instead, the Court focused on whether there was sufficient evidence of the employee's intent to benefit the employer at the time of the accident. While the employee had testified that she was returning to the office to pick up her glasses and "other items," her boss testified that the employee had told her that she was returning to the office in order "to pick up project files in preparation for" a meeting the next day. The Court held that:

Because the record shows conflicting credible testimony regarding (the employee's) intent at the time of the accident, there existed a sufficient question of fact concerning whether she was acting within the scope of her employment to submit the issue of Wirthlin's liability to the jury. The trial court thus erred in substituting its judgment for that of the jury.

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court, reinstated the $1.8 million verdict and entered final judgment for Mrs. Wu.

The key to victory in this case was our extensive discovery and argument of direct and circumstantial evidence, and reasonable inferences, of the employee's intent to benefit her employer at the time of this accident.

See the front-page article in the October 16, 2006 edition of Virginia Lawyers Weekly, which quotes my reaction to the decision -- that the Virginia Supreme Court once again has shown "utmost deference to juries."

For additional details, comments or questions, please call me -- Doug Wessel -- at 703-904-7900, or send your e-mail to me at DOUGWESSEL@aol.com.

On October 5, 2006, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in Arlington, Virginia -- a non-profit organization focused on reducing injuries and deaths on our roadways -- published the results of a new study on the safety benefits of side airbags.

The study's findings included:

1) side airbags substantially reduce the risk of death;

2) side airbags that protect people's heads are especially effective;

3) side airbags that protect only the chest and abdomen (but not the head) reduce risks at a significantly lower rate;

4) side airbags protect at a higher rate against deaths from crashes not only with cars but also with the higher-riding vehicles such as SUVs and pickups (occupants' heads are especially vulnerable in collisions with SUVs or pickups).

5) since 2003 all car models with good ratings in the crash tests have had side airbags, and very few poor performers in the crash tests have had side airbags.

The Institute's VP for research and an author of the study has stated that:

We found lower fatality risks across the board — among older and younger drivers, male and female drivers, and drivers of both small cars and larger passenger vehicles.

Moral of the story: when you choose a new riding machine, it's OK to spend some time on ordering color, horsepower and the like, but don't forget to order air bags "on the side." It's the smart, brainy thing to do, and it may be a death-defying act.