This BenGlassLaw personal injury client was hit head-on by defendant while travelling on Lee Jackson Memorial Highway (aka Route 50).
Defendant had crossed the center line and plaintiff alleged that defendant deliberately crossed center line so as to not be inconvenienced by truck which had temporarily blocked his lane. Plaintiff sought punitive damages for defendant’s alleged willful conduct.
Punitive damages in Virginia are a type of monetary compensation awarded in civil lawsuits that go beyond simply compensating the plaintiff for losses. These damages are intended to punish the defendant for particularly egregious or malicious conduct and to deter similar conduct in the future. In Virginia, there are specific guidelines and limitations regarding punitive damages:
1. Cap on Damages: Virginia law caps punitive damages at $350,000. This means that even if a jury awards a higher amount, the actual punitive damages awarded cannot exceed this limit.
2. Standard for Awarding: To receive punitive damages in Virginia, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s behavior was willful or showed a reckless disregard for the rights of others. This is a higher standard than required for compensatory damages, which only require showing negligence or breach of duty.
3. Evidentiary Standard: The plaintiff must establish the basis for punitive damages by “clear and convincing” evidence, which is a higher standard than the “preponderance of the evidence” standard used for most civil cases.
These damages are not awarded in every case and are typically reserved for instances involving particularly reprehensible behavior.
The defendant never participated in discovery and was fined for not appearing at his deposition.
In Virginia, if a party fails to show up at their deposition without a valid excuse, the court can impose discovery sanctions. These sanctions are measures taken by the court to ensure compliance with discovery rules and to penalize non-compliance. Here are some possible sanctions that might be applied:
1. Contempt of Court: The non-appearing party can be held in contempt of court, which might include fines or other penalties.
2. Compensatory Measures: The court may order the non-appearing party to pay the costs incurred by the other party due to the failure to appear, such as attorney’s fees and the costs of rescheduling the deposition.
3. Dismissal of Claims or Defenses: In more severe cases, the court may dismiss the non-compliant party’s claims or defenses if their failure to appear disrupts the proceedings significantly.
4. Default Judgment: The court may enter a default judgment against the non-compliant party, effectively deciding the case in favor of the other party due to the non-appearance.
5. Exclusion of Evidence: The court may prohibit the non-appearing party from introducing certain evidence related to the deposition topics, limiting their ability to present their case.
The specific sanctions depend on the circumstances of the non-appearance and the discretion of the court. Courts generally prefer to use sanctions that will coerce compliance rather than punish, but repeated failures or egregious noncompliance can lead to harsher penalties.
Plaintiff was treated for a broken nose and assorted bruises in initial three-month period. There was then a gap of approximately 18 months during which plaintiff did not seek medical care although her back continued to hurt. A herniated disk was subsequently found. This was a non-surgical disk. Plaintiff contended the disk was related to the accident and defendant argued that no mention had been made of the back pain in first three months of accident.
Defendant sent plaintiff to a defense examination. The doctor’s report stated, “I do feel this herniation by history is associated with the accident of October 14, 1996, and I do feel that she will require some future treatment for that condition.”
Two weeks later Dr. Lane filed an “addendum” to his report wherein he stated that he was in error in associating the herniation with the accident. He claimed that he had now “more carefully” evaluated her complaints and the medical records and determined that there was no causal relationship between the disk and the accident.
Plaintiff filed a motion to strike the “addendum” and that motion was pending when the case settled. Plaintiff had previously successfully opposed a defense motion for an Ear, Nose and Throat defense medical examination on the basis that defendant had not shown good cause for the examination.
$50,000 Fairfax Settlement Against No Show Defendant