| Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 910675 | - - | - - | February 28, 1992 | Carrico | 1992 |
Citation: Edlow v. Arnold, 415 S.E.2d 436, 243 Va. 345, 1992 Va. LEXIS 8, 8 Va. Law Rep. 2266 (1992).
Holding
“This is a plaintiff’s appeal from a judgment confirming a jury verdict for a defendant whose vehicle collided with the rear end of the plaintiff’s vehicle. The plaintiff assigns error to the trial court’s denial of her request to withdraw and change her last peremptory jury strike, to the court’s denial of her motion to set aside the verdict, and to the court’s decision to grant certain jury instructions.”
“Having heard the testimony of the three eyewitnesses, assessed their credibility, and weighed the evidence in light of the instructions, the jury obviously concluded that Arnold had conducted herself as an ordinarily prudent person would have done under the circumstances prevailing. This was a finding of fact, the trial court confirmed that finding, and we will not substitute our judgment for that of the judge and the jury.”
