Magco of Maryland, Inc. v. Barr

Supreme Court of Virginia

Magco of Maryland, Inc. v. Barr

545 S.E.2d 548, 262 Va. 1, 2001 Va. LEXIS 59

CourtSupreme Court of Virginia

DecidedMay 11, 2001

DocketRecord 002146; Court of Appeals 2377-99-4

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 545 S.E.2d 548 (Magco of Maryland, Inc. v. Barr) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Magco of Maryland, Inc. v. Barr, 545 S.E.2d 548, 262 Va. 1, 2001 Va. LEXIS 59 (Va. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

The Court of Appeals determined not only that the knowledge of the appellant’s supervisor regarding hazards on the work site may be imputed to the appellant, but also that the senior officers of the appellant knew or should have known of those hazards. Magco of Maryland, Inc. v. Barr, 33 Va. App. 78, 85, 531 S.E.2d 614, 617-18 (2000). The appellant did not assign error to the finding that the appellant’s senior officers knew or should have known of the hazards. Consequently, since there is an independent basis for the judgment of the Court of Appeals that is not challenged on appeal, this Court cannot reach the merits of those errors assigned by the appellant. Rash v. Hilb, Rogal & Hamilton Co., 251 Va. 281, 286-87, 467 S.E.2d 791, 794-95 (1996). The judgment of the Court of Appeals is final in relation to the issue of knowledge by the appellant’s senior officers and bars any appellate relief on the issues raised before this Court. United Leasing Corp. v. Thrift Ins. Corp., 247 Va. 299, 308, 440 S.E.2d 902, 907 (1994).

For these reasons, this Court affirms the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

*2 This order shall be certified to the Court of Appeals and to the Circuit Court of Arlington County and shall be published in the Virginia Reports.

A Copy, Teste: David B. Beach, Clerk

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

The Court of Appeals determined not only that the knowledge of the appellant’s supervisor regarding hazards on the work site may be imputed to the appellant, but also that the senior officers of the appellant knew or should have known of those hazards. Magco of Maryland, Inc. v. Barr, 33 Va. App. 78, 85, 531 S.E.2d 614, 617-18 (2000). The appellant did not assign error to the finding that the appellant’s senior officers knew or should have known of the hazards. Consequently, since there is an independent basis for the judgment of the Court of Appeals that is not challenged on appeal, this Court cannot reach the merits of those errors assigned by the appellant. Rash v. Hilb, Rogal & Hamilton Co., 251 Va. 281, 286-87, 467 S.E.2d 791, 794-95 (1996). The judgment of the Court of Appeals is final in relation to the issue of knowledge by the appellant’s senior officers and bars any appellate relief on the issues raised before this Court. United Leasing Corp. v. Thrift Ins. Corp., 247 Va. 299, 308, 440 S.E.2d 902, 907 (1994).

For these reasons, this Court affirms the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

*2 This order shall be certified to the Court of Appeals and to the Circuit Court of Arlington County and shall be published in the Virginia Reports.

A Copy, Teste: David B. Beach, Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

545 S.E.2d 548, 262 Va. 1, 2001 Va. LEXIS 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/magco-of-maryland-inc-v-barr-va-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack