Legal Question in Civil Litigation in Virginia

Hit & Run Defence

My vehicle was properly parked on a city street when it was hit head on by a driver on the wrong side of the road @ 2:00am. The driver left the scene but their vehicle was identified. They're defense

is ''Contributory Negligence''

and ''Assumption of Risk.'' What does this mean to me. I did nothing wrong as I understand it.


Asked on 9/02/06, 1:17 pm

2 Answers from Attorneys

Jonathon Moseley Jonathon A. Moseley

Re: Hit & Run Defence

I assume that this is the insurance company telling you this. I would not expect an individual to use such terms spontaneously.

If what you are telling us is accurate, their excuse is among the most absurd I have ever heard.

Contributory negligence means that (a) you also were negligent AND ALSO -- which most people forget -- (b) IT CONTRIBUTED TO the accident.

I suppose that if you parked your car in the middle of the street then contributory negligence might apply.

However, if your car was parked in a normal parking spot, or anywhere close to it, then I think it would be just about impossible for a parked car to raise a defense of contributory negligence.

Remember that it is not sufficient for there to be negligence. It also must CONTRIBUTE TO the accident.

I think that unless your car was parked in the middle of the street, the defense of "contributory negligence" would be laughed out of court.

"Assumption of the risk" is pretty much a dead issue in the modern law. For example, if you choose to go into the boxing ring, and then your opponent hits you in the boxing ring, you have chosen to assume the risk of getting hit in the boxing ring.

There are other, more normal, applications of the defense, but nothing remotely like this.

For example, when burglars climb on top of a shopping mall to rob the place, and then fall through, that would be "assumption of the risk." However, that defense has failed in modern times.

Certainly, with regard to parking a car on the street and/or driving a car, there is NO QUESTION that "assumption of the risk" is NOT a good defense.

Otherwise, ALL traffic accident law would go out the window, if simply by driving you are assuming the risk.

That defense is a non-starter.

However, because the person is being that stubborn, I strongly suspect you will have to sue to get your money.

Read more
Answered on 9/03/06, 8:22 pm
Michael Hendrickson Law Office Michael E. Hendrickson

Re: Hit & Run Defence

Sounds like the verbal whines of the guilty engaged in proverbial CYA and BTO(Blame The Other) Better see a lawyer about this.

Read more
Answered on 9/03/06, 12:06 am


Related Questions & Answers

More General Civil Litigation questions and answers in Virginia