See Norfolk and W. Ry. The party objecting to venue has the burden of establishing that the chosen venue is improper. The defendant has met that burden in this case, even though the facts were developed by the plaintiff. The term refers to employment-related or personal business dealings as opposed to activity that is purely personal, such as recreational pursuits. We hold it does not.
Regular action is more frequent than casual or occasional action.
The evidence shows that defendant's activity within the City of Richmond on behalf of his employer was merely casual or occasional, and not conducted in an orderly, methodical way. Accordingly, because the record affirmatively reflects the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to sustain defendant's objection to venue, the judgment appealed from will be reversed and the case will be remanded for a new trial. Upon remand, the trial court shall conduct a hearing and shall order this action transferred to either Prince George County or Chesterfield County, in accordance with the provisions of Code 8.01-264. Reversed and remanded.