Code of va 46.2-379
![code of va 46.2-379 code of va 46.2-379](https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/950c5932-c3d7-49e2-9faf-c6e45e193b76_1.d4d43539d75a392f6163022fd94f66c6.jpeg)
Code of va 46.2 379 trial#
Galbraith also contends that the trial court erred in granting a jury instruction on unavoidable accident. We hold, therefore, that the trial court erred in admitting it into evidence. An accident report made by an investigating officer "shall not be used as evidence in any trial, civil or criminal." Galbraith, although a litigant, also was the investigating officer, and the diagram was a part of the accident report. Although the report itself was not introduced into evidence, we held that the trial court committed reversible error in permitting a reference to the report by either party litigant or their counsel. In Davis, a police officer was allowed to testify by referring to a copy of an accident report. 5, 7, 244 S.E.2d 750, 751 (1978), we explained that "he rationale of the statute is that the report, although routinely and sometimes hurriedly made, primarily for statistical purposes, nevertheless carries with it the stamp of a written and official document to which a jury could attach more weight than it is properly due." Fleming contends, on the other hand, that the diagram properly was admitted into evidence because it was prepared by a party litigant and its source was not revealed to the jury.Ĭode § 46.2-379 provides, in pertinent part, that "ll accident reports made by investigating officers shall be for the confidential use of the Department and of other state agencies for accident prevention purposes and shall not be used as evidence in any trial, civil or criminal." In Davis v.
Code of va 46.2 379 code#
Galbraith contended at trial, as she does on appeal, that Code § 46.2-379 (formerly, Code § 46.1-409) precludes the admission of the diagram into evidence. The jury, however, was not informed that the diagram was a part of the report. Over Galbraith's objection, the trial court admitted the diagram into evidence. Galbraith prepared the report, which included a diagram of the accident, and signed the report as investigating officer. Galbraith is a trooper with the Virginia State Police, and her superior directed her to prepare a State Police report of the accident. He presented evidence that Galbraith suddenly backed into the path of his oncoming vehicle before he had any opportunity to see her vehicle or to avoid the collision. Fleming denied that he was speeding or failing to keep a proper lookout. Galbraith presented evidence that Fleming was travelling at an excessive rate of speed and was not looking ahead. Galbraith and Fleming presented two distinct versions of the collision. Immediately preceding the collision, Galbraith was backing her vehicle out of a parking space, and Fleming was proceeding through the lot. The accident occurred on October 29, 1988, about 3:15 p.m., on a hotel parking lot in the City of Norfolk. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Fleming, and the trial court approved the verdict. Fleming denies the claim and alleges that Galbraith was guilty of contributory negligence. Galbraith claims that her injuries were proximately caused by Fleming's negligence. Jeannette Anne Galbraith sued Jeffrey Fred Fleming and his employer, Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc., to recover damages for personal injuries she sustained in a collision between the car she was driving and Fleming's vehicle. The two issues in this appeal are whether the trial court erred in (1) admitting into evidence a diagram contained in an official police report, and (2) instructing the jury on the theory of unavoidable accident.
![code of va 46.2-379 code of va 46.2-379](https://www.martinsville-va.gov/assets/images/martinsvillepolice/martinsvillepolice_header_logo.png)
Mims, Fairfax (Brault, Palmer, Grove, Zimmerman, White & Mims, on brief), for appellees. Rapaport, Norfolk (Knight, Dudley, Dezern & Clarke, on brief), for appellant.