VIRGINIA: In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court Building in the City of Richmond on Friday the 30th day of October, 2009. Joanna Renee Browning, Appellant, against Record No. 081906 Circuit Court No. CL06000185-00 John R. East, Appellee. Upon an appeal from a judgment rendered by the Circuit Court of Montgomery County. Upon consideration of the record, briefs, and argument of counsel, the Court is of the opinion that there is reversible error in the judgment of the trial court. Joanna Renee Browning ("Browning") was driving with her 11-year old daughter as a passenger on Route 8 in Montgomery County when she collided with a cow owned by John R. East ("East"). The collision occurred around 7:45 p.m. on a dark but clear night, on a straight stretch of road that was not illuminated by artificial lighting. According to Browning, the night was "all the way dark." In the area of the collision, Route 8 is a two-lane road without turns or visual obstructions for approximately one-tenth of a mile from the direction from which Browning was driving to the site of the collision. Although Browning testified at trial that she was traveling between 45 and 50 m.p.h., she conceded on cross-examination that in an earlier deposition she had admitted her speed was between 57 and 60 m.p.h. The speed limit in that area is 55 m.p.h. Browning also stated that she had her high-beam headlights "on bright" before andleading up to the collision, and that her headlights had passed inspection and were in working order. Browning testified that her headlights illuminated the glare of an animal’s eyes ahead of her on the road. The rest of the animal appeared to be black against a dark road on a very dark evening. When she first saw the animal’s eyes, Browning was about 30 to 40 feet away from it. She immediately engaged her brakes, but could not avoid striking the animal, which she subsequently discovered was a cow. Browning stated that the cow was "standing" stationary in the middle of the road, with its front legs on one side of the double yellow dividing line and the middle and rear of its body on the side in which Browning was traveling. The cow survived, but it was later determined that the car was a total loss because of a bent frame. The cow, of the Black Angus breed, weighed about 350 pounds at the time of the accident, and was black in color. At trial, Alfred Vaden ("Vaden"), a retired Montgomery County Animal Control Officer, testified for Browning that he had several encounters with East, all stemming from instances of animals owned by East straying from his property adjacent to Route 8. Vaden stated that on one occasion in the late 1990s, he contacted East about a young bull that had wandered down a long driveway from East’s property to a garage along Route 8, and that three or four years later, a full-grown bull strayed from East’s property and was found on the "verge" of Route 8, where it could easily have roamed onto the road. Vaden testified that on both occasions, he explained the law to East, who acknowledged that the animals in question belonged to him. East, who testified by deposition at 2trial due to illness, conceded that cattle had previously escaped from his property on Route 8, that he had been contacted about it by Vaden, that he knew it was his responsibility to keep his cattle fenced in, and that cattle have a tendency to escape confinement. Browning also made a proffer of testimony about cattle owned by East that had strayed from East’s other properties in the county, and about dogs that had strayed from East’s Route 8 property. The trial court refused to allow this testimony, holding that it was not relevant because it dealt with animals and properties other than those involved in Browning’s collision. At the end of trial, East sought and obtained, over Browning’s objection, a number of jury instructions relating to contributory negligence. These instructions dealt specifically with a driver’s duties of ordinary care (Instruction No. 16), a driver’s duty to keep a proper lookout (Instruction No. 17), specifications for properly functioning vehicle headlights (Instruction No. 18), the maximum speed limit at the place of the collision (Instruction No. 19), the definition of contributory negligence (Instruction No. 20), and contributory negligence as a bar to recovery (Instruction No. 21). After deliberation, the jury returned a verdict in favor of East. Browning moved to set aside the verdict, but the trial court denied the motion and entered final judgment for East. Browning was awarded an appeal on the following assignments of error: 1. The trial court erred in granting jury instructions relating to contributory negligence (Instructions 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21). 2. The trial court erred in granting the defendant’s motion in limine to exclude from the jury evidence of the 3defendant’s prior acts of allowing his livestock to stray at other locations. Browning first argues that the trial court erred in giving Jury Instructions 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21. This Court reviews the grant or denial of jury instructions for an abuse of discretion. See Stockton v. Commonwealth, 227 Va. 124, 145, 314 S.E.2d 371, 384 (1984). Here, all of the challenged instructions focused on the issue of contributory negligence. When a defendant seeks to avoid liability based on the plaintiff’s negligence, the defendant has the burden to prove such negligence and that the negligence was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. Karim v. Grover, 235 Va. 550, 552, 369 S.E.2d 185, 186 (1988). Browning first alleges a lack of sufficient evidence to support part of Instruction 16, describing a driver’s duty to "keep a proper lookout," Instruction 17, which describes this duty as an obligation "to use ordinary care to look in all directions for vehicles that would affect her driving, to see what a reasonable person would have seen, and to react as a reasonable person would have acted to avoid a collision under the circumstances," and Instruction 18, which states, inter alia, the requirement that motor vehicles operated on highways have working high-beam headlights that illuminate "persons and objects" at least 350 feet ahead. In Ring v. Poelman, 240 Va. 323, 328, 397 S.E.2d 824, 827 (1990), the Court rejected a contributory negligence instruction
View Full Document
Unlocking...