Wright v. Tate
156 S.E. 2d 562, 208 Va. 291, 1967 Va. LEXIS 215 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An adult with a mental deficiency that falls short of legal insanity is held to the same standard of care as a reasonable person of ordinary intelligence for the purpose of determining contributory negligence. Mental deficiency does not excuse conduct that would otherwise be considered contributorily negligent.
Facts:
- Leslie Robinson Wright and five friends, including driver Homer Neal Wright, decided to drive to a restaurant to purchase beer.
- Homer Neal Wright was visibly intoxicated before the trip began, and he drove recklessly at excessive speeds on the way to the restaurant.
- At the restaurant, another passenger, Kermit Gussler, concerned about Homer's driving and condition, unsuccessfully requested to drive on the return trip.
- Leslie Wright told Gussler that he thought Gussler should be the one to drive back, acknowledging the danger.
- On the return trip, the group stopped at Latha Spangler's home, where Gussler again unsuccessfully urged the others, including Leslie Wright, to get out of the car and find another way home.
- Leslie Wright remained in the car, and Homer Wright continued to drive recklessly, ultimately crashing the vehicle into a tree.
- Leslie Robinson Wright was killed in the accident.
Procedural Posture:
- Fred B. Tate, Jr., the administrator of Leslie Robinson Wright's estate, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Homer Neal Wright in a Virginia trial court.
- Defendant Homer Wright asserted the defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of risk.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $20,000.
- The trial court denied the defendant's motion to set aside the verdict and entered judgment for the plaintiff.
- Homer Neal Wright (defendant-appellant) was awarded a writ of error to appeal the judgment to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an adult of low mental capacity, but not legally insane, held to the same objective standard of care as a person of ordinary intelligence for the purpose of determining contributory negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Snead, J.
Yes. An adult who is of low mentality but not legally insane is held to the same standard of conduct as a reasonable person under like circumstances for the purpose of determining contributory negligence. The court adopted the principle from the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which states that mental deficiency short of insanity does not excuse conduct that is otherwise contributorily negligent. To hold otherwise would create a different, subjective standard for each level of intelligence, leading to confusion and uncertainty in the law. In this case, although Leslie Wright had a low mental capacity, he was not insane, was employed, and supported his family. The evidence showed he recognized the danger, as he told another passenger that he should drive. By voluntarily remaining in the vehicle with a driver he knew was intoxicated and reckless, despite having at least two reasonable opportunities to exit the car, Leslie Wright was contributorily negligent as a matter of law, barring his estate from recovery.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the objective 'reasonable person' standard in negligence law, declining to create a subjective standard for adults based on their individual mental capacity, unless they are legally insane. By holding that low intelligence is not a defense to contributory negligence, the court prioritizes legal uniformity and predictability over an individualized assessment of a plaintiff's cognitive abilities. This precedent significantly impacts personal injury cases involving plaintiffs with cognitive disabilities, clarifying that they are generally expected to exercise the same degree of care for their own safety as a person of average intelligence.
Unlock the full brief for Wright v. Tate