 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Meyer v. Brown6/5/1998
). Regular action is more frequent than casual or occasional action.
The evidence shows that defendant's activity within the City of Richmond on behalf of his employer was merely casual or occasional, and not conducted in an orderly, methodical way. Significantly, defendant said he was required to enter the City "on occasion" to confer with the brokers, these sporadic visits being "spaced out" during the year but occurring "more often in the fall." In sum, defendant's activity in the City was not so frequent as to be performed "regularly" within the meaning of Section 8.01-262(3).
Accordingly, because the record affirmatively reflects the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to sustain defendant's objection to venue, the judgment appealed from will be reversed and the case will be remanded for a new trial. Upon remand, the trial court shall conduct a hearing and shall order this action transferred to either Prince George County or Chesterfield County, in accordance with the provisions of Code Section 8.01-264.
Reversed and remanded.
|