Court Opinion

ID: 9569192
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:11:21.497662+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:50:18.808893
License: Public Domain

COMPTON, J.,
dissenting.
There is no dispute in the evidence that Ingram had been ordered by his superiors not to drive the city vehicle while under the influence of intoxicants. Yet, despite the command of that order, of which Ingram had full knowledge, he intentionally (not negligently or accidentally) proceeded to consume a large quantity of liquor and become thoroughly intoxicated. Then, he drove the vehicle while inebriated causing a head-on collision.
In my opinion, Ingram’s permission to use the vehicle ended when he became intoxicated. See Fidelity, etc., Co. v. Harlow, 191 Va. 64, 59 S.E.2d 872 (1950). He was obligated by the terms of the permission to park the vehicle and not to drive it until he was sober.
Thus, I would reverse the judgment of the trial court and enter final judgment for the city.
POFF and STEPHENSON, JJ., join in dissent.