Habers v. Madigan

Decision Date15 January 1973
Citation213 Va. 485,193 S.E.2d 653
PartiesGeorge Christopher HABERS v. Richard MADIGAN, Administrator of the Estate of Jacqueline Madigan, Deceased,et al.
CourtVirginia Supreme Court

J. Randolph Larrick, Winchester (Largent, Anderson & Larrick, Winchester, on brief), for plaintiff in error.

Thomas V. Monahan, Leesburg (Hall, Monahan & Engle, Leesburg, on brief), for defendants in error.

Before SNEAD, C.J., and I'ANSON, CARRICO, HARRISON, COCHRAN, HARMAN, and POFF, JJ.

I'ANSON, Justice.

Richard Madigan, administrator of the estate of Jacqueline Madigan, deceased, brought this action against George Christopher Habers, Paul Shafer Howell, and H. C. Gabler, Inc., for the wrongful death of his daughter, Jacqueline.A jury trial resulted in a verdict of $40,000 against all the defendants and judgment was subsequently entered on the verdict.All three defendants petitioned this court for writs of error.We denied the petitions of Howell and H. C. Gabler, Inc., but granted Habers a writ of error to the judgment.

Habers contends (1) that there was no evidence showing that he was grossly negligent; (2) that the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence; and (3) that the judgment against him is void because a guardian Ad litem had not been appointed to represent his interests before the jury returned their verdict.

The evidence shows that at approximately 6:15 p.m. on December 8, 1967, Habers, an infant born on August 27, 1948, was the operator of an automobile traveling north on Interstate 81, a short distance east of the City of Winchester, when his car collided with the rear of a tractor-truck driven in the same direction by defendant Howell, who was at the time the agent and employee of defendantH. C. Gabler, Inc.After striking the tractor-truck, the Habers car traveled approximately 296 feet and overturned in the median strip of the highway.The collision caused the death of Jacqueline Madigan, who was a guest passenger in Habers' car, and seriously injured Habers.

Interstate 81 at the point of the accident is a straight, divided highway, having marked lanes proceeding north and south, and with a slight upgrade to the north.It was a dark night, and the weather was clear and dry.

State trooper F. M. Bauserman appeared on the scene shortly after the accident had occurred and conducted an investigation.He measured the distances the two vehicles traveled from the point of collision, took pictures of the scene, talked to the drivers of the vehicles, and examined the taillight on the tractor-truck.He testified that there were no running lights on the rear of the tractor-truck and that its taillight lens was covered with heavy dirt, except for an area from which the dirt had been scraped.When Howell drove the tractor-truck truck from the scene Bauserman followed in his car, and he said that the 'rear taillight (on the tractor-truck) was very dim.It was just a small red, dim light.'He could see the taillight through the cleared area of the lens from a distance of only two or three car lengths.

Defendant Habers, called as an adverse witness, could not recall any of the events occurring just prior to or at the time of the collision.

Defendant Howell testified that before the accident he had driven the tractor with a trailer attached from Boston, Massachusetts, to the Gabler terminal at Kernstown (two miles from the scene of the accident).He arrived at the terminal at approximately 6 p.m.After detaching the trailer he noticed that the taillight on the tractor was 'extremely dirty.'The lens was cracked and 'it was dirty on both sides.'He used his hand 'to rub the red part of the light so it could be seen.'Shortly thereafter he left the terminal in the tractor-truck, and while driving it north on Interstate 81 in the right-hand lane at a speed of approximately 48 miles an hour, he noticed the Habers car and estimated it was traveling at twice his speed.The Habers car crashed into the rear of the tractor-truck with such force that it pushed the left rear wheel of Howell's vehicle forward 8 to 10 inches and broke the rear spring.As the...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
4 cases
  • Mary Washington Hosp., Inc. v. Gibson
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • September 7, 1984
    ...of the accident." Featherall v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co., 219 Va. 949, 959, 252 S.E.2d 358, 365 (1979). See Habers v. Madigan, 213 Va. 485, 487, 193 S.E.2d 653, 655 (1973). Here, the plaintiff's evidence failed to demonstrate that the conditions at the site had not changed materially b......
  • Brown v. Corbin
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • November 6, 1992
    ...similar, although not necessarily identical, to the actual event in all of its essential particulars. See Habers v. Madigan, 213 Va. 485, 487, 193 S.E.2d 653, 655 (1973). See also Mary Washington Hosp. v. Gibson, 228 Va. 95, 99, 319 S.E.2d 741, 743 (1984); Saunders v. Bulluck, 208 Va. 551, ......
  • Featherall v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co.
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • March 2, 1979
    ...were the same or substantially similar in essential particulars to those existing at the time of the accident. Habers v. Madigan, 213 Va. 485, 487, 193 S.E.2d 653, 655 (1973); Richards v. Commonwealth, 107 Va. 881, 893, 59 S.E. 1104, 1108 The plaintiff proffered evidence that in August of 1......
  • Reynolds v. Riggs
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • January 15, 1988
    ...times and that the average distance from which he could see his assistant was 420 feet. This case is controlled by Habers v. Madigan, Adm'r, 213 Va. 485, 193 S.E.2d 653 (1973). Habers also involved an experiment concerning what could be seen on a highway. In Habers, the defendant drove into......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT