Mangus v. Doe, 5386
| Decision Date | 23 April 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 5386,5386 |
| Citation | 203 Va. 518,125 S.E.2d 166 |
| Parties | ARTHUR J. MANGUS v. JOHN DOE. Record |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Calvin W. Breit (Robert S. Cohen; Amato, Babalas, Breit & Cohen, on brief), for the plaintiff in error.
William L. Shapero (Shapero & Shapero, on brief), for the defendant in error.
JUDGE: I'ANSON
This is an appeal from an order sustaining a motion to dismiss a motion for judgment filed by the plaintiff, Arthur J. Mangus, against the defendant, John Doe, on the ground that the operator of a motor vehicle causing injuries to Mangus was not 'unknown' within the meaning of the language of the Uninsured Motorist Law. 1
The motion for judgment alleged that on August 3, 1960, Mangus was the owner and operator of an automobile which stopped in a line of traffic facing east on Princess Anne road near its intersection with Tidewater drive in the city of Norfolk, in compliance with a traffic signal showing red at the intersection; that while Mangus was waiting for the light to change and traffic ahead of him to move, a motor vehicle operated in a negligent manner by an unknown party struck the rear of the Mangus vehicle, and as a result thereof Mangus suffered serious bodily injuries.
The United States Casualty Company, insurer of the Mangus automobile, filed in its own name and in the name of John Doe, the defendant, a joint motion to dismiss the motion for judgment on the principal ground that the person causing the injury to Mangus was not 'unknown' to him within the meaning and purview of § 38.1-381, as amended.
The court, after hearing evidence on the motion to dismiss, in a written opinion held that while the operator of the vehicle which struck the Mangus automobile was unknown, he was unknown only because Mangus failed to exercise reasonable diligence to ascertain his identity, and that he was not 'unknown' within the meaning of § 38.1-381, as amended, and entered its order sustaining the motion and dismissing the motion for judgment.
The evidence heard on the motion to dismiss shows that while the Mangusautomobile was stopped in a line of traffic it was struck on its rear bumper by an automobile operated by an unknown party. Mangus and the other operator got out of their vehicles, examined them, and determined that no physical damage had been done to either car. Neither of the operators obtained the name of the other, the vehicles' license numbers, nor any information relating to their identities.
Mangus made no report of the accident to the Divison of Motor Vehicles or to his insurance company until sometime during the first week in December, 1960.
At the time of the accident Mangus was receiving regular treatments for an arthritic condition and did not know that he had sustained any physical injury in the accident until November 1, 1960, when his physician found he was suffering from a ruptured disk. He was immediately hospitalized, where he remained until November 15, 1960, and upon his discharge from the hospital he was confined to his home for three weeks.
Mangus was the named insured in an automobile bodily injury and property damage liability insurance policy issued by the United States Casualty Company with the endorsement thereon required by § 38.1-381(b), and under its terms the insurance company agreed 'to pay the insured all sums which he shall be legally entitled to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. United Services Auto. Ass'n
...not permitted to conceal such information as he may obtain. Virginia's high court has reached the same conclusion. In Margus v. Doe, 203 Va. 518, 125 S.E.2d 166 (1962), the injured party negligently failed to obtain the name of the driver of the car which injured him. The court "For us to s......
-
Zarder v. Humana Ins. Co.
...a duty to ascertain the identity would be to read into the statute "language which does not there appear." See, e.g., Mangus v. Doe, 203 Va. 518, 125 S.E.2d 166, 168 (1962). ¶ 39 Our review of case law, as supported by the Widiss and Thomas treatise, leads us to conclude that the vast major......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Godfrey
...those in the Georgia statute quoted above. However, the facts in those cases are unlike those in the present case. In Mangus v. John Doe, 203 Va. 518, 125 S.E.2d 166, 168, at the time of the accident it did not appear that the plaintiff 'had sustained any damage to his automobile or that he......
-
O'BRIEN v. Government Employees Insurance Company, 15906.
...may be "unknown" if the insured under certain circumstances fails to take his name at the scene of the accident. Mangus v. Doe, 203 Va. 518, 125 S.E.2d 166 (1962). 16 See the authorities cited by the District Court, text at note 14 supra. The Virginia policy against disclosure of insurance ......