Opinion ID: 1058031
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: willful and wanton negligence

Text: The Volpes next assign error to the circuit court striking their claim for willful and wanton negligence. As set forth above, in deciding whether the Volpes established a prima facie showing of willful and wanton negligence, the circuit court was required to accept as true all evidence favorable to the Volpes. TB Venture, 280 Va. at 562-63, 701 S.E.2d at 793. We also view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Volpes. See id. The tort of willful and wanton negligence has been characterized as a spirit of mischief, criminal indifference, or conscious disregard for the rights of others. Infant C. v. Boy Scouts of America, Inc., 239 Va. 572, 581, 391 S.E.2d 322, 327 (1990). In Infant C., we explained: The hallmark of this species of tortious conduct is the defendant's consciousness of his act, his awareness of the dangers or probable consequences, and his reckless decision to proceed notwithstanding that awareness. Because such consciousness and awareness are prerequisites, the use of the term negligence, in defining the tort, is a misnomer. Id. at 581-82, 391 S.E.2d at 327. Here, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the Volpes, we accept that the City knew that the dam could present dangers in certain conditions. The evidence, however, did not establish that City officials acted with a spirit of mischief, criminal indifference, or conscious disregard for the rights of swimmers. In fact, the evidence did not establish that the City, prior to Charles' death, even knew that swimmers climbed on the dam and jumped into the water below. Accordingly, the circuit court properly granted the City's motion to strike the evidence for the claim of willful and wanton negligence. [5]