eNotes: Liability – March 2025 – Virginia

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Virginia Case Summary

Al-Saray v. Furr
Virginia Supreme Court
No. 230488

Decided: January 16, 2025

Proximate cause may be established by circumstantial evidence when the evidence is sufficient to show that the alleged causation is a probability rather than a mere possibility.

Background

Tamara Al-Saray was a passenger in Janaia Spurlock’s vehicle, travelling eastbound on Wellington Road in Manassas, VA, when Spurlock turned left on Market Place Avenue, with a green turn arrow. At the same time, Sharon Furr travelled straight in the westbound lane of Wellington Road through the intersection with Market Place Avenue and collided with Spurlock. Al-Saray – sitting in the passenger side of Spurlock’s vehicle – suffered significant injuries as a result, including traumatic brain injury. Al-Saray filed a negligence suit against both Spurlock and Furr. At trial against Furr only, Al-Saray presented evidence regarding Furr’s eyesight troubles, arguing that they contributed to the accident. Furr moved to strike the evidence, and argued that Al-Saray failed to show that Furr was not wearing corrective lenses at the time. She also argued that Al-Saray failed to prove how and when Spurlock entered the intersection. Furr further reasoned that “if a Defendant is not negligent under at least one explanation of the evidence, then circumstantial evidence cannot satisfy the Plaintiff’s burden.” The Trial Court denied Furr’s Motion. It then found that there was some circumstantial evidence to support Al-Saray’s theory for failure to maintain a proper lookout. The case went to a jury, which found in favor of Al-Saray and awarded her $7,000,000.

Furr appealed to the Court of Appeals of Virginia claiming, among other things, an issue with the sufficiency of Al-Saray’s evidence. In a split decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the Trial Court’s decision and ordered that the case be dismissed. The Court of Appeals determined that Al-Saray’s evidence was purely circumstantial and failed to make out a prima facie case of negligence against Furr. The Court of Appeals reasoned that Al-Saray’s evidence created three plausible theories of action, one of which would exonerate Furr, and that the existence of an alternative explanation for the accident suggested that the jury’s verdict was the product of speculation and conjecture. One dissenting Judge, however, opined that Al-Saray’s evidence supported a reasonable inference of causation that rose beyond mere speculation, and was properly left for the jury to decide. On appeal to the Supreme Court of Virginia, Al-Saray argued that the Court of Appeals erred and failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to her.

Holding

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, ruling in favor of Al-Saray. The Court stated that proximate cause may be established by circumstantial evidence, provided that such evidence is sufficient to show that the causation alleged is a probability, rather than a mere possibility. The Court found that the Intermediate Appellate Court was wrong to conclude that because Al-Saray failed to exclude every other explanation that might exonerate Furr as the proximate cause, that Al-Saray failed to make a prima facie case for negligence. The Court reasoned that proximate cause is a question for the jury, and only becomes a question of law when reasonable minds could not differ. The Court further reasoned that the Court of Appeals’ analysis was based upon a narrow view of the evidence, rather than evidence of the entire sequence of events. Given the entire sequence of events and circumstantial evidence, the Court found that a jury could reasonably infer that Furr’s failure to keep a proper lookout and/or failure to yield to Spurlock was the proximate cause of the accident.

Questions about this case can be directed to Amanda Finney at (571) 470-0394 or afinney@tthlaw.com.