Campbell v. Wagner

75 Va. Cir. 203, 2008 Va. Cir. LEXIS 90
CourtAmherst County Circuit Court
DecidedMay 5, 2008
DocketCase No. CL07006747
StatusPublished

This text of 75 Va. Cir. 203 (Campbell v. Wagner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Amherst County Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Campbell v. Wagner, 75 Va. Cir. 203, 2008 Va. Cir. LEXIS 90 (Va. Super. Ct. 2008).

Opinion

By Judge J. Michael Gamble

I am writing this letter to rule on the motion in limine of the plaintiff. In this regard, the motion in limine is sustained. The defendant is directed to not admit in evidence, or comment on, the failure of the plaintiff to wear a seatbelt or any activity to unbuckle her seatbelt.

Va. Code § 46.2-1094(D) provides in part that “this section shall not... be the subject of comment by counsel in any action for the recovery of damages arising out of the operation... of a motor vehicle.” This code section constitutes a policy decision by the General Assembly to ban any comment on the failure to wear seatbelts. There is no exception granted by the statute to this blanket rule.

Further, after listening to the arguments of counsel, I do not think this ruling inhibits any argument of the defendant that the plaintiff was either contributorily negligent or assumed the risk. The fact that she either opened the door, or tried to leave the car while it was still in motion, is not prohibited by this ruling. While the court is not ruling at this time that this is admissible, the grant of the motion in limine with reference to the seatbelt does not prevent the presentation of these facts.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
75 Va. Cir. 203, 2008 Va. Cir. LEXIS 90, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/campbell-v-wagner-vaccamherst-2008.