A lawsuit stemming from an accident last year near my house as a few surprising allegations by injured cab driver. First, the defendant is accused of driving drunk. Second, he is accused to having sex at the time of the accident. Finally, he is accused of being partially in the backseat during the tryst. Defense counsel denies the allegations.
Attorneys sign filings to establish the good-faith basis of both facts and allegations. These allegations are included in that complaint n Fairfax County:
Paragraph 10. “At the time of the collision, Defendant was going 85 miles per hour.”
Paragraph 12. “At the time of the collision, Defendant was having sex with a female.”
Paragraph13. “At the time of the collision, Defendant was driving admittedly drunk.”
Paragraph 14. “At the time of the accident, Defendant was partially or totally in the backseat of the car.”
This is quite a discrepancy between the claims of the parties. It will be interesting to see the good-faith basis for the claims in the trial.
The drunk driving part was established by an earlier conviction. The twenty-one-year-old defendant was returning from his birthday party. Notably, however, the judge threw out a request for punitive damages in an earlier motion. The judge is generally supposed to assume the factual allegations in reviewing such motions. Does this mean that, even if they proved the driver was having sex and partially in the backseat, it would still not warrant punitive damages in Virginia?