Virginia's Judicial System


Appeals Granted


Case

RGR, LLC v. GEORGIA SETTLE, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF CHARLES G. SETTLE, JR., DECEASED
(Record Number 130633)

From

From the Circuit Court of Prince William County; O'Brien, Judge

Counsel

Charles L. Williams and James C. Skilling (Williams & Skilling, P.C.) and J. Tracy Walker, IV and Robert W. Loftin and S. Virginia Bondurant (McGUIREWOODS) for Appellant.

Christopher I. Kachouroff (Dominion Law Center, P.C.), Robert J. Cynkar (Cuneo, Gilbert & DeLuca, LLP) and Kevin L. Locklin (Locklin & Mordhorst, P.C.)

Assignment of Error

  1. The trial court erred as a matter of law in not granting RGR's pre-trial motions on August 1, 2012, and by not clarifying the alleged duty RGR owed to Mr. Settle as well as the negligence theory being advocated by Mrs. Settle, instead erroneously allowing Mrs. Settle to proceed on a premises liability theory although Virginia does not recognize any duty by a premises owner or lessor to a guest on an adjacent property.
  2. The trial court erred as a matter of law in not granting RGR's motions to strike at trial on the grounds that (a) Mrs. Settle failed to establish that RGR owed a duty to Mr. Settle, (b) the undisputed evidence demonstrated that Mr. Settle was contributorily negligent as a matter of law, and his own negligence was the proximate cause of the collision, and (c) the undisputed evidence demonstrated that RGR's lumber pile was not a proximate cause of the accident where Mr. Settle was killed.
  3. The trial court erred as a matter of law in giving premises liability instructions to the jury that are not recognized in, and are contrary to, Virginia law in the context of a non-premises liability case.
  4. The trial court erred as a matter of law in not granting RGR's Motion to Set Aside the Verdict as Contrary to the Law and the Evidence, Motion for a New Trial, and Motion for Remittitur, where the verdict was contrary to the evidence and incorrect as a matter of law because Mrs. Settle did not establish any duty owed by RGR to Mr. Settle, any breach of any duty by RGR, or that any conduct by RGR was the proximate causer of Mr. Settle's death, and it was incorrect as a matter of law because Virginia does not recognize any duty by a premises owner or lessor to a guest on an adjacent property.
  5. The trial court erred as a matter of law in interpreting and applying Code Sections 8.01-35.1 and Sec. 8.01-382 to the set-off of the Norfolk Southern settlement.

Date Granted

  01-23-2014