 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Meyer v. Brown6/5/1998
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND James B. Wilkinson, Judge
In this appeal of a judgment in favor of a plaintiff in a personal injury action, the dispositive question is whether the trial court erred in overruling the defendant's objection to venue.
In October 1994, appellee Reginald D. Brown, the plaintiff below, was injured in a collision in Prince George County between a motorcycle he was operating and a motor vehicle driven by appellant Robert E. Meyer, the defendant below. In October 1996, the plaintiff filed the present negligence action against defendant in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond seeking recovery in damages for his injuries.
The defendant filed an objection to venue and moved the trial court to transfer the action to either the Circuit Court of Prince George County or the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County. The defendant asserted that venue was not proper in the City of Richmond because the accident happened in Prince George County and defendant "resides and works in Chesterfield County." Following a hearing, at which the parties presented defendant's deposition on the issue, the trial court overruled the objection.
The case proceeded to trial before a jury, which fixed plaintiff's damages at $1 million. The court entered judgment on the verdict and we awarded defendant this appeal.
Defendant assigns three errors, but we shall discuss only the second: "The court erred in ruling that [defendant] was subject to venue in the City of Richmond when the accident sued upon happened in Prince George County and [defendant] lived and worked in Chesterfield County."
Code Section 8.01-260 provides, as pertinent to this appeal, that "the venue for any action shall be deemed proper only if laid in accordance with the provisions of Sections 8.01-261 and 8.01-262." Code Section 8.01-261, enumerating forums deemed "preferred" places of venue, is inapplicable here.
Code Section 8.01-262, enumerating "permissible" forums, applies. In subsection (3), the statute provides that a permissible forum shall be a county or city " herein the defendant regularly conducts affairs or business activity." The question then becomes whether, under the facts presented, this defendant regularly conducted affairs or business activity in the City of Richmond.
According to defendant's deposition testimony, given upon examination by plaintiff's attorney, defendant was a 20-year employee of Tredegar Industries, which is "basically an aluminum and plastics company." The defendant, a resident of Chesterfield County, had worked at the company's Chesterfield County business location since 1989. He was Tredegar's "insurance manager," administering company property and casualty insurance. Defendant's employer owned no facility within the City of Richmond.
Defendant's employment required him "to go into" the City " n occasion" to confer with two separate insurance brokers, which maintained offices within the City. He would visit one broker " ot more than once a year" and would "be in the office" of the other " aybe six times during the year." Visits to the brokers were "spaced out" during the year but occurred "a little more often in the fall" in connection with Discussions regarding January 1 renewals of insurance contracts. Defendant's job duties also required him to attend insurance seminars "perhaps" three times a year at private clubs within the City.
Defendant also testified he travelled through the City " wice a year, perhaps" on "pleasure" trips en route to Northern Virginia to visit a son. Additionally, he said, he was "in the City of Richmond either to pass through or stop some
Page 1 2 3 Virginia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|