eNotes: Liability – October 2024 – Virginia

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Virginia Case Summary

Hazelwood v. Lawyer Garage, LLC
Virginia Court of Appeals
81 Va. App. 586, 904 S.E.2d 322

Decided: August 6, 2024

In multistate tort actions, the governing substantive law is the law of the state where the last event necessary to make an actor liable for an alleged tort takes place.

Background

In December 2019, Harvy Hazelwood contracted with Lawyer Garage LLC and Atlantic Heating and Cooling to pick up four vehicles from Lawyer Garage’s repair shop in Virginia and transport the vehicles by tractor trailer to Scottsdale, Arizona. After arriving in Arizona, Hazelwood was unloading the cars when one of the car’s brakes suddenly disengaged and rolled backwards, causing Hazelwood to fall and sustain injuries. Hazelwood filed suit in the Circuit Court for the City of Virginia Beach, alleging negligence and vicarious liability under Arizona law against Lawyer Garage, Atlantic Heating & Cooling, Aaron Lawyer, and Richard Soelberg, for allowing Hazelwood to transport a motor vehicle with defective brakes without warning him of the defect. Defendants demurred to Hazelwood’s Complaint, arguing that Arizona substantive law was not applicable, and that Hazelwood relied on statutes that did not impose any duty upon them.

The Circuit Court sustained the demurrer, ruling that Virginia law governed because “all the conduct that constitute[d] the alleged tort occurred in Virginia even if the effects of the conduct were felt in Arizona.” Hazelwood appealed the Court’s decision to sustain the demurrer, arguing that because his injury occurred in Arizona, Arizona substantive law was applicable to his claim. The Court of Appeals of Virginia noted that the case presented a matter of first impression in determining the governing substantive law when the final injury resulting from alleged negligence arises in a different state from where the duty was assumed.

Holding

The Court held that the Circuit Court erred in determining that for the purposes of lex loci delicti, the site of the appellant’s injury in Arizona was merely the site of the “effects” of the tort because the injury Plaintiff suffered while unloading the vehicle completed the elements necessary to establish his negligence claim. Thus, his injury was not merely “the effects of the conduct,” but was instead the damage resulting from the alleged breach of duty owed to Plaintiff. The Court reasoned that, given that a tort is an injury, and the tort of negligence does not occur until damages have been caused, the “last act” necessary to determine the “place of the wrong” must be the injury suffered, not the literal last act of the defendant that caused the plaintiff to suffer the injury. The Court concluded that the tort was not complete until the injury occurred, and therefore, the place of the wrong was Arizona, where the tort was completed.

Questions about this case can be directed to Lily Smith at (571) 470-1906 or lsmith@tthlaw.com.