Court Opinion

ID: 9839761
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-13 21:00:27.369135+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:06.448778
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2149     Doc: 28         Filed: 09/12/2023   Pg: 1 of 5

                                           UNPUBLISHED

                             UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                 FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                             No. 21-2149

        KAREN RENEE PRESTON,

                           Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        BRIAN ROBERT GRIMES; WALMART TRANSPORTATION, LLC,

                           Defendants - Appellees,

        and

        FRANKLIN COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; SCHOOL SYSTEMS OF VIRGINIA
        GROUP SELF-INSURANCE ASSOCIATION,

                           Intervenors.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (7:19-cv-00243-MFU-RSB)

        Submitted: March 6, 2023                                 Decided: September 12, 2023

        Before GREGORY and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2149      Doc: 28         Filed: 09/12/2023    Pg: 2 of 5

        ON BRIEF: Jonathan E. Halperin, Isaac A. McBeth, HALPERIN LAW CENTER, Glen
        Allen, Virginia, for Appellant. Matthew Nis Leerberg, Troy D. Shelton, FOX
        ROTHSCHILD LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2149      Doc: 28            Filed: 09/12/2023   Pg: 3 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

               Karen Renee Preston sued Brian Robert Grimes and Walmart Transportation, LLC

        (“Defendants”), for negligence. ∗ Preston alleged that Grimes, who drove a Walmart

        tractor-trailer, negligently ran a red light and struck her school bus. The jury returned a

        verdict for Defendants, finding that Preston was contributorily negligent under Virginia

        law. Preston appeals the district court’s orders denying her motions for judgment as a

        matter of law, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict. For

        the reasons that follow, we affirm.

               We review de novo the denial of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 motion for judgment as a

        matter of law, viewing the facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to

        the prevailing party below. Legacy Data Access, Inc. v. Cadrillion, LLC, 889 F.3d 158,

        164 (4th Cir. 2018). “Entry of judgment as a matter of law is appropriate only if the

        evidence is legally insufficient to support the jury’s verdict.” Bresler v. Wilmington Tr.

        Co., 855 F.3d 178, 196 (4th Cir. 2017). In considering this question, we may “not weigh

        evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses.” Burgess v. Goldstein, 997 F.3d 541, 549

        (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). Instead, “[j]udgment as a matter of law

        is proper only if there can be but one reasonable conclusion as to the verdict.” Ocheltree v.

        Scollon Prods., Inc., 335 F.3d 325, 331 (4th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (internal quotation marks

        omitted).

               ∗
                 Defendants removed this case from Franklin County Circuit Court in Virginia,
        invoking the district court’s diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Preston
        thereafter filed an amended complaint.

                                                       3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2149       Doc: 28         Filed: 09/12/2023      Pg: 4 of 5

               Under Virginia law, “[c]ontributory negligence is an affirmative defense,” RGR,

        LLC v. Settle, 764 S.E.2d 8, 21 (Va. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted), that “is an

        absolute bar to recovery on a simple negligence claim,” AlBritton v. Commonwealth, 853

        S.E.2d 512, 523 (Va. 2021). To establish contributory negligence, “a defendant must show

        that the plaintiff was negligent and that such negligence was a proximate cause of the

        accident.” Settle, 764 S.E.2d at 21. “The proximate cause of an event is that act or

        omission which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient intervening

        cause, produces that event, and without which that event would not have occurred.” Id.

        at 27 (internal quotation marks omitted).

               Viewing the trial record in the light most favorable to Defendants, sufficient

        evidence supports the jury’s verdict. On appeal, Preston concedes that she negligently

        failed to keep a proper lookout before entering the intersection but argues that her

        negligence did not proximately cause the accident. Specifically, she asserts that even if

        she kept a proper lookout, she could not have anticipated Defendants’ negligence and

        therefore could not have prevented the accident. However, at trial, witnesses situated

        similarly to Preston testified that they saw the tractor-trailer and realized that it would run

        the red traffic light due to its proximity to the intersection and high speed. The record

        therefore contains adequate evidence to support a finding that Preston’s negligence

        contributed to the collision. Furthermore, we reject Preston’s contention that she was

        entitled to assume that the tractor-trailer would obey the red traffic signal. See Va. Elec. &

        Power Co. v. Holland, 37 S.E.2d 40, 42 (Va. 1946) ( “One may presume, unless it appears

        otherwise, that the command of a traffic light will be obeyed.” (emphasis added)). The

                                                      4
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2149         Doc: 28       Filed: 09/12/2023    Pg: 5 of 5

        authorities on which Preston relies, including Webb v. Smith, 10 S.E.2d 503 (Va. 1940),

        are readily distinguishable on their facts.

               Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Preston’s motions for judgment

        as a matter of law. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

        are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                                                      AFFIRMED

                                                      5