Today's Supreme Court of Virginia Opinions

A more detailed discussion of some of these cases is on the way, but here are the topics of today's relevant Supreme Court of Virginia decisions:

- DurretteBradshaw, PC v. MRC Consulting, LC (tortious interference)

- Hyland v. Raytheon Technical Servs. Co. (defamation)

- Hancock-Underwood v. Knight (error for trial court to grant an unavoidable accident jury instruction; also discusses jury instructions for the sudden emergency doctrine)

- Martin v. Duncan (trial court erred by imposing jury costs on plaintiff who took first nonsuit as a matter of right during trial)

- Commonwealth v. Wynn (hearsay evidence)

- Jackson v. Qureshi (expert testimony in a medical wrongful death case)

- Centra Health, Inc. v. Mullins (medical malpractice – election of remedies/motion to strike)

- Sunrise Continuing Care LLC v. Wright (trial court erred by denying motion to strike in breach of contract action)

- Helms v. Manspile (adverse possession)

- Beeren & Barry Inc. v. AHC, Inc. (a disputed purchase option contained in a deed of trust was held not to be a covenant that runs with the land)

-Landmark HHC, LLC v. Park (landlord-tenant dispute in commercial lease)

- Portillo v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co. (material misrepresentations voided automobile insurance policy)

Proposed Bills Affecting Civil Litigation

A flood of bills have been proposed over the past few days to coincide with the start of the General Assembly session (see here for an overview of the upcoming session).

Here is a look at some of the legislation that has already been proposed (in addition to my earlier post on the proposed fee shift in jury trials) that may have an impact on civil practice in Virginia:

-Statute of Limitations: One bill wants to extend the current two-year statute of limitations in drug-related personal injury actions.

- VCPA: Two bills propose changes to the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. One would add selling a product recalled by the CPSC to the list of predicate offenses, while another would clarify issues involving "foreclosure rescues."

- Evidence: A bill has been proposed that would expand the list of inadmissible expressions of sympathy by health-care providers.

- Civil Immunity: Proposed legislation would provide various levels of civil immunity for charitable food donations and distributions, private and charitable groups during a governor-declared emergency, and volunteer officers and directors of a local civic league or community organization.

- Miscellaneous:
-A bill adopting the Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act.
- A bill proposing to increase the medical malpractice cap to $2.75 million (UPDATE: this bill will probably be held over until the 2010 session)

More to come as the session progresses.

Bill Proposed to Shift Jury Costs to Losing Plaintiff Who Requests Jury Trial

The following bill was recently proposed in the General Assembly:

1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 17.1-605.1 as follows:
§ 17.1-605.1. Payment of jury costs; civil actions.
Except in cases where Virginia law mandates that a civil action be tried by a jury, any jury costs shall be assessed by the clerk against a plaintiff who requested a trial by jury if that plaintiff did not substantially prevail on the merits of his case.

Montgomery County School District Sued Over Student Reprimand

As reported by an article in the Roanoke Times, the mother of a former Montgomery County elementary school student filed a $100,000 suit against the school board, alleging that her son suffered from anxiety and needed therapy after he was reprimanded at school. The article provides the following details:

According to the suit, Ratcliffe’s son, then a second-grader, who has autism, was “scolded, physically restrained and embarrassed” when a resource teacher and assistant principal reprimanded him on April 21. The three-page suit claims that the assistant principal and the resource teacher “had no training, educational guidance or experience” to deal with the boy’s impairment and that the incident caused him anxiety and panic attacks.

Fourth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of PAX Tire Case

Today, in a published opinion, the Fourth Circuit affirmed a Maryland district court's dismissal of a suit involving Honda minivans equipped with the PAX tire system in Robinson v. American Honda Motor Co. Inc. et al.

As summarized by the court: "Through a purpose-built wheel-rim and tire combination, PAX System tires are designed to provide a 'run-flat' capability. If a tire is punctured, the minivan can still be driven at speeds of up to 55 mph for a distance of up to 125 miles." (see here for additional information on the PAX system). Because of the system's "unique wheel-rim and tire combination, no other brand or model of tire will fit on the minivan unless the wheels themselves are replaced." This system is standard for the Touring model of the Honda Odyssey.

The plaintiff brought a class action suit against Honda and Michelin, which included claims of breach of express and implied warranties, as well as consumer fraud. Essentially, these claims centered around alleged rapid or uneven wear on the tire tread, necessitating more frequent replacement than conventional tires.

After construing the warranties on the tires, the court rejected the express warranty claim, concluding that the plaintiff's "efforts to manufacture a promise concerning tread wear out of a warranty provision plainly intended to limit warranty coverage are unavailing."

The court also affirmed the dismissal of the breach of implied warranty claim, concluding that:

Robinson’s claim fails because he has not alleged that his Michelin PAX System tires have a shorter tread life than other run-flat tires, and this is the proper standard of comparison. To hold otherwise would require all automobile tires to last as long as the standard passenger tire and would elevate durability above all other considerations in the manufacture and design of tires. This procrustean standard would severely limit the ability of tire and automobile manufacturers to create the specialized tires that consumers may desire. The purchaser of a set of tires—and not the courts—should be given the power to decide what balance of durability, performance, special features, and safety is best suited to his needs. If Robinson desired tires with the same tread life as standard passenger tires, he could have purchased a minivan wearing standard passenger tires.

Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's suit pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6).

Defamation Suit Against NYT Filed in Richmond

As outlined in this article from the Virginia Lawyer's Weekly, lobbyist Vicki Iseman filed a $27 million defamation suit against the New York Times on December 30th in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The suit stems from a front page article published by the NYT last February that indicated that Senator John McCain had a relationship with Iseman in 1999. The VLW article summarizes the allegations in the complaint:

The suit alleges the article falsely communicated that Iseman and McCain had an illicit “romantic” relationship in 1999 when he was chair of the Senate Commerce Committee and she was a lobbyist representing clients before Congress.
Richmond lawyer W. Coleman Allen Jr. and Rodney A. Smolla, dean of the Washington & Lee law school and a First Amendment scholar, represent Iseman.
…
The suit claims that Iseman suffered damage to her mental, emotional and physical health. The lawyers noted that she continues to work as a lobbyist in Washington, for a firm based in Arlington. . . .
The piece was published at the height of the primary season last winter, and, the suit states, the defendants knew that it would “reverberate around the world.”
The suit continues, “In their attack on Senator McCain, the [defendants] were willing to sacrifice Ms. Iseman as acceptable collateral damage, recklessly indifferent to the avalanche of scorn, derision and ridicule Ms. Iseman would suffer.”
…
Allen noted that after the Times article was published in February, Iseman had anticipated filing a lawsuit that would be “the source of her vindication.” She specifically waited until the national election was over, he said, adding that she did not want any suit she filed to influence the result.

The VLW has a copy of the complaint posted here.