Present: All the Justices 

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY 

v. Record No. 980386 OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY 

 January 8, 1999 

RONALD P. WHITE 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FLUVANNA COUNTY 

John R. Cullen, Judge 

 On the evening of December 24, 1994, Ronald P. White was 

a passenger in a truck driven by Ronald C. Steele, Jr. The 

truck was traveling westbound on Route 53, a two–lane highway 

in Fluvanna County. White was severely injured when the truck 

left the highway, traveled along a ditch line until it struck 

a rock, became airborne, and landed upside down between two 

trees. White and Steele were hospitalized. 

White filed a motion for judgment against Steele and an 

unidentified John Doe, seeking recovery for the damages he 

sustained in the accident. White alleged that Steele was 

reckless and negligent for failing to maintain proper control 

of his vehicle and that John Doe negligently drove his vehicle 

across the center of the highway, forcing Steele's vehicle off 

the highway. White also served Allstate Insurance Company 

(Allstate) pursuant to Code § 38.2-2206(E) because he was an 

insured under the uninsured motorist provisions of a motor 

vehicle liability policy issued by Allstate. 
The jury returned a verdict in favor of both defendants. 

On White's motions and over Allstate's objections, the trial 

court set aside the verdict as to Doe, entered judgment 

against Doe on the issue of liability pursuant to Code § 8.01-

430, and dismissed the motion for judgment against Steele. 

The parties agreed to submit the issue of damages to the trial 

court. Relying on the evidence produced at trial, the trial 

court entered judgment against Doe in the amount of $250,000 

with interest. Allstate appealed, seeking reinstatement of 

the jury verdict in Doe's favor or, in the alternative, a new 

trial on the issues of Doe's liability and damages.1

On appeal, Allstate first contends that the trial court 

erred in setting aside the jury verdict because the jury 

reasonably could have inferred from the evidence that either 

Doe did not exist or that he had not been negligent. In 

reviewing Allstate's contention, we apply familiar principles. 

Code § 8.01-430 authorizes a trial court to set aside a jury 

verdict if it is plainly wrong or without credible evidence to 

support it. Lane v. Scott, 220 Va. 578, 581, 260 S.E.2d 238, 

240 (1979). On appeal, the judgment of a trial court setting 

aside a jury verdict will be sustained if the record contains 

no credible evidence to support the jury verdict, viewing the 

 1

 White filed a notice of appeal from the judgment in 

favor of Steele, but did not pursue that appeal. 

2
facts and all reasonable inferences which may be drawn from 

the facts in the light most favorable to the party receiving 

the jury verdict. Rogers v. Marrow, 243 Va. 162, 166, 413 

S.E.2d 344, 346 (1992). 

The evidence relating to the cause of the accident comes 

primarily from White's testimony. Although Steele pled guilty 

to a charge of improper driving in connection with the 

incident, he has no memory of the accident. There were no 

other witnesses to the accident. 

At the time of the accident, it was raining and dark and 

the road was wet. The posted speed limit was 55 miles per 

hour; White testified he thought Steele was driving 50 to 55 

miles per hour. According to White, as Steele's vehicle came 

out of a curve, White suddenly saw the glare of the headlights 

of a vehicle traveling east that "looked like" it was coming 

toward them in the westbound lane. White testified that, to 

avoid a collision, Steele veered to the right, causing the 

truck to leave the highway, become airborne and eventually 

land upside down between two trees. White could not estimate 

the speed of the Doe vehicle, did not know whether it was a 

truck or a car, or where it was located on the roadway. 

White also testified that he had been drinking beer 

before he and Steele got into the truck. He testified that he 

could not remember precisely how many beers he had consumed in 

3
the two-hour span before the accident, but that it might have 

been as many as three. The state trooper who investigated the 

accident testified that there were no skid marks or debris on 

the highway. 

According to Allstate, White's admitted consumption of 

alcohol supports a conclusion that White's perception of the 

details surrounding the accident was impaired by the alcohol 

he had consumed and, thus, that his testimony was not 

reliable. White's inability to identify anything about the 

Doe vehicle and Steele's guilty plea to improper driving, 

Allstate asserts, entitled the jury to conclude that there was 

no vehicle driven by a John Doe and that the accident was not 

caused by the negligence of an unidentified motorist. Either 

conclusion required a verdict in favor of Doe, and, therefore, 

Allstate concludes, the trial court erred in setting aside the 

jury verdict in favor of Doe. 

 Citing Ragland v. Rutledge, 234 Va. 216, 219, 361 S.E.2d 

133, 135 (1987), White responds that his testimony regarding 

the cause of the accident and the existence of a vehicle 

driven by John Doe was positive, uncontroverted, and credible 

and, therefore, could not be disregarded by the jury. 

However, that principle is not applicable in this case. It is 

true that there was no positive testimony controverting 

White's statements regarding the events surrounding the 

4
accident. The evidence relied upon by Allstate addresses the 

reliability of White's testimony. As White notes, the trial 

judge determined that White had "a reputation for truth and 

honesty." The evidence relating to impaired perception 

because of alcohol consumption does not impeach White's 

character trait for telling the truth. Such evidence affects 

the probative value of White's testimony by suggesting that, 

at the time of the accident, his perception of the details and 

events may have been impaired, and, therefore, that the 

testimony was not reliable.2

Having reviewed the record, we agree with Allstate and 

conclude that the trial court erred in setting aside the jury 

verdict. Based on the evidence recited above, the jury was 

entitled to infer that White's perception of the circumstances 

of the accident was impaired. 

Furthermore, assuming that there was a Doe vehicle, there 

is no direct evidence that Doe was negligent. The only 

evidence bearing on the issue of Doe's negligence was White's 

statement that, as the Steele vehicle came around the curve, 

 2

 White also argues that the evidence of his alcohol 

consumption was not admissible because Allstate failed to 

provide a proper foundation showing the level of consumption 

which would result in impairment of White's perception. 

However, while White objected to questions relating to alcohol 

consumption, that objection was overruled and White has not 

assigned cross-error to that ruling. Therefore, we treat the 

evidence as properly before the jury. 

5
White saw the glare of the Doe vehicle's headlights, and "[i]t 

looked like he was on our side of the road considerably." 

(Emphasis added.) Although there was an accident, there was 

no collision between two vehicles which could provide evidence 

of the location of the Doe vehicle. Nor were there any skid 

marks or debris identifying the location of the Doe vehicle. 

And finally, White's statement regarding the location of the 

Doe vehicle was subject to the inference of impaired 

perception stemming from White's alcohol consumption. 

 As noted by the trial court in refusing White's motion to 

strike Allstate's evidence and to find Doe liable as a matter 

of law, it was "a matter for the jury to decide whether or not 

there — there was a John Doe driver at that particular scene 

. . . and, if so, what came from that." We conclude that 

there was evidence in this record to support a jury verdict in 

favor of John Doe either because there was no John Doe vehicle 

or because White failed to establish that John Doe was 

negligent and that his negligence resulted in White's 

injuries. 

Accordingly, we will reverse the judgment of the trial 

court and enter final judgment reinstating that portion of the 

jury verdict in favor of John Doe. In light of this 

determination, we need not address Allstate's remaining 

assignments of error. 

6
Reversed and final judgment.

7