The Attractive Nuisance Doctrine in Virginia

Children deem it their prerogative to roam wherever they please. In particular, they have a tendency to wander on other people\u27s land and meddle with anything they find there. In doing so they frequently get hurt. The problem of the liability of occupiers of land for such injuries has taken up much of the time of American courts in the last one hundred years and has resulted in many published decisions. The trial courts in Virginia have devoted much thought and time to this problem, and since 1887 twelve cases have been heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. It is the purpose of this article to review the present state of the Virginia law as to that liability

Foreward

This first issue of the University of Richmond Law Notes inaugurates a service by the Faculty of the Law School which we hope will be of some value to the lawyers of Virginia. If the bar thinks the undertaking worth- while it will become a permanent publication,-perhaps enlarged in scope and volume

Foreword

Five years ago when the first issue of the University of Richmond Law Notes was published, the hope was expressed that the articles in that number and the succeeding ones would be of practical value to the lawyers of Virginia. The Faculty of the Law School are gratified at the reception given the Law Notes. To serve the profession has been our main objective. However, from the beginning, plans were made for student participation in the preparation of the materials as well as in the business management of this publication

Virginia\u27s New Last Clear Chance Doctrine

Rule # 1. Where the injured person has negligently placed himself in a situation of peril from which he is physically unable to remove himself, the defendant is liable if he saw, or should have seen, him [and realized, or ought to have realized, his peril] in time to avert the accident by using reasonable care. \u27Rule # 2. Where the plainfiff has negligently placed himself in a situation of peril from which he is physically able to remove himself, but is unconscious of his peril, the defendant is liable only if he saw the plaintiff and realized, or ought to have realized, his peril in time to avert the accident by using reasonable care. These two rules state the new last clear chance doctrine in Virginia. They were announced by the Supreme Court of Appeals in a unanimous decision on September 14, 1955, in Greear v. Noland Co., 197 Va. 233, 238. Rule # 1 has always been the law in Virginia and elsewhere. Rule # 2 is new, and it brings Virginia -in line with the overwhelming weight of authority in America. Prior to this decision the Virginia law on last clear chance was in a state of hopeless confusion

Foreword

With the articles appearing in this the fifth issue of the Law Notes, the Faculty have presented twenty-three brief discussions. We have been amply rewarded by the kind reception accorded our efforts. This year, for the first time, the Law Notes has been opened to contributions from students, and in this Number appears the first article by a student. It is hoped that the readers will continue to find all the articles of practical value to the practicing lawyers

Foreword

The articles in the Law Notes are prepared by members of the faculty of the University of Richmond Law School. They are intended to be both practical and brief, with a minimum of references. We hope that the profession has found them helpful

Negligence Per Se and the Virginia Motor Vehicle Code

Wigmore, writing in 1911, said: The general question... whether an injury caused by the defendant while violating a [criminal] statute is actionable per se is a troublesome one, open to much argument, and not yet settled by any generally accepted principle

Foreword

We are pleased to present to the profession the eighth annual issue of the University of Richmond Law Notes. This Number 3 of Volume 2 contains three articles, two of which were prepared by members of the Faculty and one by an alumnus. It is hoped that our readers will find them to be both timely and helpful. The case notes were selected from a large number submitted by students. In editing, management, and in content, the students are taking an increasingly active part in this publication

Basis of Liability for Blasting in Virginia

In this period of prosperity more private capital is avail- able for construction of all kinds. Also, vast sums of public funds are being appropriated for all types of construction, particularly highway construction. For example, the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways alone will involve the construction of 41,000 miles of highway, and is designed to connect and serve all major urban centers in the United ,States. It is probably the largest peacetime engineering project ever undertaken by man. An estimated three-fourths of a million parcels of land, approximately 1,500,000 acres, will be condemned for highway right-of-way over the fifteen- year construction period

Foreward

The reception accorded the first number of the University of Richmond Law Notes, published last spring, has been most gratifying. It has encouraged the Faculty to prepare this second number, which also is being distributed to all alumni of the Law School through the courtesy of the University of Richmond Law School Association. There has been a modest volume of requests for copies of the first issue from non-alumni members of the bar and from many law libraries