The Supreme Court reverses the Court of Appeals’ reversal of a $7,000,000 Verdict
Al-Saray v. Furr, Record No. 230488 (Va. Jan. 16, 2025)
Facts: Tamara Al-Saray was the passenger in a vehicle driven by Janaia Spurlock that collided with Sharon Furr’s vehicle at an intersection to a shopping center. Furr was traveling straight toward the intersection at 45 mph, and Spurlock was making a left turn into the shopping center in front of Furr. Furr struck the rear, passenger side of the Spurlock vehicle. Both drivers faced a solid green light when the crash occurred. Al-Saray suffered serious injuries in the crash. She sued both drivers for negligence but nonsuited her claims against Spurlock just before trial.
At trial, Greg Burke testified that he was traveling straight toward the intersection in front of Furr. About eight seconds before the crash, while preparing to turn right into the shopping center, he saw Spurlock at a stop or slow creep in the intersection. About four seconds after his turn, he heard, but did not see, the crash. Furr testified that she was looking straight ahead while approaching the intersection, with about 300-400 feet of unobstructed view in front of her. She, however, never saw Spurlock before or after she entered the intersection; she saw only a “white blur” just before the crash. Furr made motions to strike after both Al-Saray’s and her own evidence, arguing that the evidence did not establish that she was negligent or that her negligence caused the crash. The trial court denied both motions and a motion for reconsideration, and the jury returned a $7,000,000 verdict in favor of Al-Saray. Furr appealed.
In a split decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the jury’s verdict. The majority opinion stated that Al-Saray’s evidence was purely circumstantial and did not establish that Furr was the proximate cause of the crash. Rather, the evidence suggested one of three “‘equally plausible theories of causation:’ (1) Furr was the sole proximate cause of the accident, (2) Furr’s and Spurlock’s actions were each a proximate cause, thus rendering them joint tortfeasors, (3) Furr was not a proximate cause at all, notwithstanding her failure to keep a proper lookout.” This time, Al-Saray appealed.
Issue: Whether sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict that Furr was negligent and that her negligence was a proximate cause of the crash.
Holding: Yes.
Notes: The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in three ways: it required Al-Saray to exclude every possible explanation that might exonerate Furr; it viewed the evidence in favor of Furr rather than Al-Saray, the prevailing party below; and it focused too narrowly on the four seconds before the crash. First, the question was not whether the circumstantial evidence excluded all possibilities that Furr was not negligent, but whether “the inference that served as the basis for the jury’s verdict was reasonable in light of the evidence.” Second, while the Court of Appeals stated that the evidence “only” showed that Spurlock failed to yield the right-of-way to Furr, the Supreme Court points out that other evidence showed that Furr was in the intersection before Furr, which could lead a jury to believe that Furr failed to yield the right-of-way to Spurlock. Finally, there was evidence that Spurlock was visible in the intersection at least eight seconds before the crash, Furr had 300-400 feet of unobstructed view of the intersection but failed to see Spurlock, Spurlock had almost cleared the intersection since the point of impact was at the rear of the vehicle, and Furr’s failure to keep a proper lookout was a proximate cause of the crash.
But, the jury’s verdict is not reinstated just yet. Since Al-Saray lost in the Court of Appeals, that Court did not address Furr’s assignments of cross-error. So, the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration of those issues.