Quick Answer
Can you recover compensation if you were partially at fault for your accident in Virginia?
Maybe — Virginia follows “pure contributory negligence” as of 2026, meaning even any fault that contributes to the event potentially bars recovery. However, critical exceptions exist: last clear chance, willful and wanton negligence, and sudden emergency. And, even if these don’t apply, the defense must prove your negligence was a cause of the collision. Understanding these exceptions can mean the difference between no recovery and full compensation.
Key Takeaways:
- Virginia is one of only four states still using pure contributory negligence
- The defendant must prove your negligence was a proximate cause of your injuries
- Last clear chance allows recovery when the defendant had the final opportunity to avoid the accident
- Willful and wanton negligence by the defendant overcomes your ordinary negligence
- Causation analysis is critical — even if you were negligent, did it actually cause the harm?
You’re rear-ended at a stoplight. The other driver was texting and never touched their brakes. But you were watching a reel on your phone while stopped. Two weeks later, the insurance company denies your claim: “Under Virginia contributory negligence law, you cannot recover.”
Is that true? Sometimes — but not always. Virginia’s contributory negligence doctrine is harsh, but understanding the burden of proof, causation, and exceptions often makes the difference between a denied claim and a viable case.
For a legal consultation with a personal injury lawyer, call (434) 817-3100
What Is Contributory Negligence?
Contributory negligence is a legal doctrine that bars an injured person from recovering damages if their own negligence contributed to the accident.
Virginia follows the “pure” contributory negligence standard, which means:
If you were even 1% at fault, you might not be able to recover anything.
It doesn’t matter if the other party was 99% responsible. It doesn’t matter how catastrophic your injuries are. In theory, if a jury finds you contributed to your own harm through negligence, the defense will argue that Virginia law bars recovery entirely.
I say “in theory” because I’ve found in more than 20 years of practicing law that what happens in the real world can be different. That’s because it is usually a jury—not a judge, not a defense attorney, not an insurance company—that decides whether an injured party’s conduct rises to the level of contributory negligence.
How Harsh Is This Rule?
Consider this scenario:
- Driver A is speeding at 50 mph in a 45 mph zone
- Driver B runs a red light and crashes into Driver A
- Driver A suffers a traumatic brain injury
- A jury finds Driver B 95% at fault and Driver A 5% at fault (for speeding)
Result in Virginia: The defense will argue that Driver A should not recover anything.
Result in most other states: Driver A would recover 95% of their damages (comparative negligence).
The Silver Lining: Burden of Proof
Here’s what many people don’t understand: The defendant has the burden of proving contributory negligence.
Virginia Civil Model Jury Instruction 6.040 states:
“When the defendant claims contributory negligence as a defense, he has the burden of proving by the greater weight of the evidence that the plaintiff was negligent and that this negligence was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.”
This means the defendant must prove:
- You were negligent (failed to exercise reasonable care)
- Your negligence was a proximate cause of your injuries
Both elements must be proven. If the defendant can’t show evidence that your negligence proximately caused your harm, the defense likely cannot obtain a contributory negligence jury instruction. But, even if they get the instruction, you have a strong argument to the jury that your client’s behavior did not contribute to the collision in any way.
How Contributory Negligence Works in Virginia (Simple Breakdown)
In a Virginia personal injury case:
-
The injured person must prove the other party was negligent.
-
The defense may argue the injured person was also negligent.
-
If a jury finds the injured person contributed in any way to the accident,
-
The injured person may recover nothing, even if the other party was mostly at fault.
Because Virginia is one of the few states that still follows this rule, contributory negligence is often the central issue in serious injury cases.
Causation: The Critical Analysis Most Attorneys Miss
The starting point with attacking the contributory negligence defense is causation. Virginia law recognizes some important points about causation that must be considered.
First, the plaintiff’s contributory negligence must be “substantial” to the point that, “without it the accident would not have occurred.” Lerwill v. Regent Van & Storage, 217 Va. 490 (1976). This focuses not on whether the injured party’s conduct was reasonable. Instead, it examines whether the incident that caused injuries would have occurred without the injured party’s conduct.
Second, under Virginia law, any contributory negligence must be “concurrent” with the defendant’s negligence. Ponirakis v. Choi, 262 Va. 119 (2001). That means the defendant’s negligence and any contributory negligence must be contemporaneous.
These rules really help put the whole “1 percent” discussion into context. Just because you were negligent doesn’t mean contributory negligence automatically bars your case. The defendant must prove your negligence was a proximate cause of your injuries. This is the first way to attack the contributory negligence defense.
A good way to illustrate this is with an example.
Example: The “Watching a Reel” Defense
Return to our opening scenario: You’re rear-ended while stopped at a red light. And, yes, you were scrolling on your phone at the time and not paying attention.
The defense argues: “If you’d been watching and not on your phone, you would have been paying attention and might have avoided this crash. Therefore, your negligence contributed to your harm.”
The causation analysis: Would the accident have occurred if you were not using your phone? No — the accident was caused by the defendant’s negligence, not you using your phone. You were lawfully stopped at a stop light.
The key question becomes: Did your conduct contribute to the occurrence of the accident? Would the crash have happened if you were NOT on your phone?
The key: Causation is fact-intensive and it really looks at whether your conduct helped cause the accident. Would the accident have occurred without your conduct? Don’t assume contributory negligence applies just because you weren’t perfect.
After all, reasonableness, not perfection, is the legal standard.
Does An Exception to Contributory Negligence Apply?
If there is evidence that you were negligent and that it partially caused the crash, it will be important to see if an exception applies.
Exception #1: Last Clear Chance Doctrine
The last clear chance doctrine is a notable exception to contributory negligence in Virginia.
What Is Last Clear Chance?
Even if you were negligent, you can still recover if:
- You were in a position of peril
- You were unable to escape that peril through your own efforts
- The defendant discovered (or should have discovered) your peril
- The defendant had the last clear chance to avoid injuring you
- The defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to avoid the harm
How It Works in Practice
Example: The Stalled Car
Your car stalls in the right lane of I-64. You turn on your hazard lights and remain in the vehicle. An approaching driver is distracted by their phone and crashes into your stopped car.
Contributory negligence argument: You were negligent for not exiting the vehicle or pushing it off the roadway.
Last clear chance defense: Even if you were negligent, the other driver had the last clear chance to avoid hitting you. The approaching driver should have seen your hazard lights and stopped car. They had ample opportunity to avoid the collision but failed to do so because they were distracted.
Result: You have an argument that you can recover despite your own negligence.
Exception #2: Willful and Wanton Negligence
When a defendant’s conduct rises to willful and wanton negligence, your ordinary or gross negligence won’t bar recovery.
What Is Willful and Wanton Negligence?
Virginia Model Jury Instruction 4.040 defines willful and wanton conduct as:
“acting consciously in disregard of another person’s rights or acting with reckless indifference to the consequences, with the defendant aware, from his knowledge of existing circumstances and conditions, that his conduct probably would cause injury to another.”
The degrees of negligence:
- Ordinary negligence: Failure to exercise reasonable care
- Gross negligence: Conduct so careless it shocks the conscience
- Willful and wanton negligence: Conscious disregard for others’ safety with awareness of danger
When Does Willful and Wanton Apply?
Virginia Model Jury Instruction 6.055 explains:
“If you find from the greater weight of the evidence that the defendant engaged in willful and wanton conduct that proximately contributed to the accident, and if you further find from the greater weight of the evidence that the plaintiff engaged in conduct that proximately contributed to that same accident, but that such conduct was only [negligent; grossly negligent], then defendant cannot rely upon contributory negligence as a defense to plaintiff’s claim.”
Translation: If the defendant’s conduct was willful and wanton, but yours was only ordinary or gross negligence, you can argue that contributory negligence does not apply. This is based on well established Virginia law. Griffin v. Shively, 227 Va. 317 (1984).
The one exception to this exception: If your conduct was also willful and wanton, then contributory negligence bars recovery.
Examples of Willful and Wanton Conduct
Drunk Driving Cases:
Virginia law provides that a defendant’s conduct “shall be deemed sufficiently willful or wanton” when:
- BAC was 0.15% or higher
- The defendant knew or should have known their ability to drive was impaired when they began drinking
- The intoxication was a proximate cause of the injury
Professional Violations in Truck Accidents:
In commercial trucking cases, violations of federal safety regulations by trained drivers can support willful and wanton findings. When a professional driver:
- Receives training on safety requirements
- Knows the purpose of those requirements
- Understands the danger of violating them
- Consciously chooses to violate them anyway
This can constitute willful and wanton negligence.
Why This Exception Matters
Most defendants in injury cases commit ordinary or gross negligence — not willful and wanton conduct. But willful and wanton negligence can arise in cases involving:
- Extreme intoxication
- Professional violations (commercial drivers, medical providers) who violate safety regulations and knowingly create safety risks
- Conscious disregard of known dangers
- Reckless behavior with awareness of likely harm
The willful and wanton exception can save an otherwise barred case.
Exception #3: Sudden Emergency Doctrine
The Supreme Court of Virginia has explained that an injured party who allegedly committed contributory negligence can argue that they were “confronted with a sudden emergency and act[ed] as an ordinarily prudent person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances.” Jones v. Ford Motor Co., 263 Va. 237 (2002).
What is sudden emergency?
A sudden emergency looks at the following factors: “When evidence is conflicting or different inferences may be drawn from the evidence, it is for the jury to say (1) whether [the operator of the automobile] was confronted with an emergency; (2) whether the emergency, if one existed, was created by [the operator’s] own negligence; and (3) whether [the operator of the vehicle] conducted himself as an ordinarily prudent person might have done under the same or similar circumstances.”
It is important to understand a couple things about this. First, it would be an uncommon situation for a court to grant the sudden emergency instruction. Second, the injured party must not be at fault for causing the emergency in the first place. This is likely a rare exception.
Click to contact personal injury lawyers today
How Contributory Negligence Applies Across Different Case Types
The same basic rule applies to all Virginia personal injury cases, but how it plays out varies significantly by case type.
Motor Vehicle Accidents
Common contributory negligence defenses:
- Speeding (even 1-5 mph over the limit)
- Following too closely
- Failure to keep proper lookout
- Distracted driving (phone, radio, passengers)
- Failure to use turn signals
Key battlegrounds:
- Was the plaintiff’s conduct a proximate cause of the collision, or just the severity of injuries?
- Did the defendant have the last clear chance to avoid the accident?
- In rear-end collisions, can the defendant prove the plaintiff stopped suddenly without reason?
Truck Accidents
Commercial trucking cases offer unique opportunities to overcome contributory negligence through the willful and wanton exception.
Why truck cases are different:
- Professional drivers are trained on federal safety regulations
- Violations of Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) can evidence conscious disregard
- Training records provide proof of actual knowledge
- Higher duty of care for professional drivers
Common willful/wanton scenarios:
- Failure to deploy emergency warning devices for stopped vehicles (49 CFR § 392.22)
- Hours of service violations with falsified logs
- Driving with known mechanical defects
- Overweight loads despite driver knowledge
Motorcycle Accidents
Common contributory negligence defenses:
- Not wearing a helmet (in jurisdictions where not required)
- Lane splitting or riding between lanes
- Excessive speed
- Aggressive riding
- Lack of proper motorcycle endorsement
Key consideration: Virginia courts have held that failure to wear a helmet, when not required by law, generally goes to damages rather than liability.
Premises Liability / Slip and Fall Cases
Common contributory negligence defenses:
- Plaintiff wasn’t watching where they were walking
- Plaintiff was wearing improper footwear
- Plaintiff was distracted (phone, conversation)
- Hazard was “open and obvious”
- Plaintiff should have taken a different route
Key doctrine: The “open and obvious” doctrine often overlaps with contributory negligence. If a hazard was open and obvious, plaintiffs are expected to see and avoid it. Failure to do so may constitute contributory negligence.
Exception: Even if a hazard is open and obvious, if the plaintiff had no reasonable alternative route or had a legitimate reason for encountering the hazard, contributory negligence may not apply.
Medical Malpractice
Common contributory negligence defenses:
- Patient didn’t follow treatment instructions
- Patient failed to disclose medical history
- Patient didn’t return for follow-up appointments
- Patient engaged in activities against medical advice
- Patient didn’t take prescribed medications
Key analysis: Did the patient’s conduct contribute to the injury caused by the provider’s malpractice? Often, patient non-compliance affects a different aspect of health than the provider’s negligent act.
Example: A surgeon operates on the wrong body part (clear malpractice). The patient didn’t follow pre-op fasting instructions. The fasting violation didn’t contribute to the wrong-site surgery — so contributory negligence likely doesn’t apply.
Product Liability
Common contributory negligence defenses:
- Plaintiff misused the product
- Plaintiff ignored safety warnings
- Plaintiff modified the product
- Plaintiff used the product for an unintended purpose
Key doctrine: “Comparative fault” principles in product liability cases can interact with contributory negligence. The question becomes: Was the plaintiff’s use of the product “reasonably foreseeable” even if not exactly as intended?
If the manufacturer should have anticipated the way the plaintiff used the product, misuse may not constitute contributory negligence.
Dog Bite Cases
Common contributory negligence defenses:
- Plaintiff provoked the dog
- Plaintiff was trespassing
- Plaintiff ignored warnings about the dog
- Plaintiff approached a dog showing signs of aggression
Virginia’s strict liability rule: Virginia has a “one-bite rule” — owners are liable if they knew or should have known their dog was dangerous. But this liability can still be defeated by contributory negligence if the plaintiff provoked the dog or was trespassing.
What Defense Attorneys Look For: Common Contributory Negligence Tactics
Understanding how defense attorneys use contributory negligence helps you protect your case from the beginning.
Tactic #1: The “Blame the Victim” Investigation
After any accident, defense attorneys immediately look for ways to shift blame to you:
- Requesting your cell phone records to prove distraction
- Examining your social media for evidence of prior risky behavior
- Interviewing witnesses who might say you were at fault
- Obtaining traffic camera footage showing any violation
- Reviewing your medical records for non-compliance with prior treatment
Protection strategy: Assume everything you do and say will be scrutinized. Don’t post on social media about the accident. Don’t give recorded statements to the defense’s insurance adjuster.
Tactic #2: The “Minor Violation” Magnification
Defense attorneys know that even minor violations can bar recovery in Virginia. They’ll magnify small infractions:
- “The plaintiff was going 47 in a 45 — that’s speeding.”
- “The plaintiff changed lanes without signaling.”
- “The plaintiff’s inspection sticker was expired.”
Protection strategy: Focus on causation. Even if you committed a minor violation, did it proximately cause the accident? Often, it didn’t.
Tactic #3: The Spoliation Threat
If you took any action that destroyed potential evidence — even innocently — defense attorneys may argue:
- You deleted text messages
- You repaired your vehicle before inspection
- You threw away damaged clothing
- You didn’t preserve GPS or dashcam data
Protection strategy: Preserve everything. Don’t repair, destroy, or discard anything related to the accident until you’ve spoken with an attorney.
Tactic #4: The Comparative Credibility Attack
Defense attorneys will contrast your conduct with the defendant’s:
- “The defendant has a clean driving record. The plaintiff has two prior speeding tickets.”
- “The defendant was cooperating with police. The plaintiff seemed evasive.”
Protection strategy: Your prior history generally isn’t admissible to prove you acted negligently this time — but it may come in to impeach your credibility if you testify. Be honest from the beginning.
Tactic #5: The Expert Battle
Defense attorneys hire accident reconstruction experts who will testify:
- You could have braked sooner
- You could have swerved
- You were driving too fast for conditions
- Your reaction time was delayed
Protection strategy: Your attorney needs equally qualified experts to counter these opinions. Don’t skip the expert investment.
Complete a Case Evaluation form now
When to Get a Second Opinion
If you’ve been told contributory negligence bars your case, consider getting a second opinion when:
1. The Attorney Didn’t Discuss Exceptions
If your attorney never mentioned:
- Last clear chance
- Willful and wanton negligence
- Sudden emergency doctrine
- Causation analysis
They may not have fully evaluated your case or they may not understand the exceptions.
2. The Attorney Focused Only on Your Conduct
If the consultation centered on what you did wrong without thoroughly investigating what the defendant did wrong, the analysis may be incomplete.
3. The Attorney Has Limited Trial Experience
Contributory negligence cases often go to trial because defendants know plaintiffs are under pressure to settle for nothing. An attorney without substantial trial experience may not want to take these risks.
4. Your Case Involves Professional Defendants
If your case involves:
- Commercial truck drivers
- Medical professionals
- Professional drivers (bus, taxi, Uber/Lyft)
- Companies with safety obligations
There may be willful and wanton arguments the attorney missed, especially regarding trained violations of industry standards.
5. The Attorney Made Assumptions About Causation
If the attorney assumed your conduct proximately caused your injuries without detailed analysis, get a second opinion from someone who will examine:
- Whether your conduct caused the occurrence
- Whether the defendant’s conduct would have caused the accident regardless
- Whether expert testimony might disprove proximate causation
6. It’s a High-Value Case
If your injuries are catastrophic (traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, wrongful death), the stakes are too high to accept a quick “contributory negligence bars your case” conclusion.
Get a second opinion from an attorney with specific experience in:
- Complex causation analysis
- Trial experience overcoming contributory negligence
- Willful and wanton negligence claims
- The specific type of case you have
Frequently Asked Questions
What does contributory negligence mean in Virginia?
Contributory negligence means that if your own negligence contributed to causing your accident or injuries in any way, you cannot recover any compensation — even if the other party was mostly at fault. Virginia follows “pure” contributory negligence, one of the harshest standards in America. If a jury finds you at fault, you recover nothing. However, important exceptions exist for last clear chance, willful and wanton negligence, and sudden emergency situations.
Can I sue if I was partially at fault in Virginia?
Yes, you can file a lawsuit even if you were partially at fault. However, the defendant will raise contributory negligence as a defense. If successful, this defense bars all recovery. Your case depends on: (1) whether you were actually negligent, (2) whether your negligence proximately caused your injuries, and (3) whether any exceptions apply (like last clear chance or willful and wanton negligence by the defendant). The defendant has the burden of proving contributory negligence by the greater weight of the evidence.
What is the last clear chance doctrine in Virginia?
The last clear chance doctrine allows you to recover even if you were negligent, if the defendant had the last clear opportunity to avoid injuring you and failed to do so. To apply, you must have been in a position of peril that you couldn’t escape, the defendant discovered or should have discovered your peril, the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the accident through reasonable care, and the defendant failed to exercise that care. This is the most commonly successful exception to contributory negligence in Virginia.
What’s the difference between contributory negligence and comparative negligence?
Contributory negligence (Virginia’s rule) is an all-or-nothing approach: any fault could bar all recovery. Comparative negligence (used by most states) reduces your recovery by your percentage of fault. For example, if you’re 20% at fault for a $100,000 injury, contributory negligence means you get $0, while comparative negligence means you’d recover $80,000. Only Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, Alabama, and Washington D.C. still follow pure contributory negligence.
What is willful and wanton negligence in Virginia?
Willful and wanton negligence means acting with conscious disregard for another person’s rights or with reckless indifference to consequences, when the defendant is aware their conduct will probably cause injury. It’s more than ordinary negligence (carelessness) or even gross negligence (extreme carelessness) — it requires awareness of the danger and conscious choice to create that danger anyway. When a defendant’s conduct is willful and wanton, your ordinary or gross negligence won’t bar recovery (unless your conduct was also willful and wanton, which is rare).
How long do I have to file a lawsuit in Virginia if contributory negligence is an issue?
The statute of limitations is generally two years from the date of injury for most personal injury cases in Virginia under Va. Code sec. 8.01-243. Contributory negligence doesn’t change this deadline — it’s a defense raised during the lawsuit, not a bar to filing. However, don’t wait. Evidence that could defeat contributory negligence (witness statements, video footage, maintenance records) may disappear quickly. In commercial trucking cases, some federal records must be preserved for only six months.
Can a child be contributorily negligent in Virginia?
Yes, but Virginia applies a different standard for children. Children under seven are generally conclusively presumed incapable of contributory negligence. Children between seven and fourteen are presumed incapable, but this presumption can be rebutted. And, children over fourteen are held to the same standard as adults. The question is whether the child exercised the degree of care that a reasonable child of the same age, intelligence, and experience would exercise under similar circumstances.
What happens if both drivers were negligent in Virginia?
If both drivers were negligent and both drivers’ negligence proximately contributed to the accident, neither can recover from the other under Virginia’s contributory negligence rule. However, one party may still recover if: (1) the other party’s negligence was willful and wanton, (2) last clear chance applies, or (3) one party’s negligence didn’t proximately cause the accident despite appearing negligent.
How do I prove the defendant had the last clear chance?
To prove last clear chance, you need evidence showing: (1) you were in a position of peril you couldn’t escape, (2) the defendant discovered or should have discovered your peril in time to avoid hitting you, (3) the defendant had time and ability to avoid the accident through reasonable care, and (4) the defendant failed to exercise that care. Evidence includes: witness testimony about timing and distances, accident reconstruction analysis, video footage showing the defendant’s opportunity to brake or swerve, and proof the defendant was distracted when they should have seen you.
What should I do if my attorney says contributory negligence bars my case?
Ask specific questions: (1) Did they investigate whether last clear chance applies? (2) Did they consider whether the defendant’s conduct was willful and wanton? (3) Did they analyze whether your negligence actually proximately caused your injuries? (4) Did they review all available evidence, including expert analysis? If your attorney hasn’t thoroughly examined these issues, or if your case involves high-value injuries or a professional defendant (commercial driver, medical provider), consider getting a second opinion from an attorney with specific experience defeating contributory negligence defenses.
Does contributory negligence apply to wrongful death cases in Virginia?
Yes. If the deceased person was contributorily negligent, their estate and family members generally cannot recover in a wrongful death action. The same exceptions apply: last clear chance, willful and wanton negligence by the defendant, and sudden emergency. Wrongful death cases involving contributory negligence are particularly important to evaluate carefully because of the high stakes, and because the deceased person cannot testify about what happened, making evidence preservation and witness testimony critical.
Bottom Line: Contributory Negligence Is Harsh, But Not Absolute
Virginia’s contributory negligence rule creates significant challenges for injury victims. Being even partially at fault can bar recovery entirely — a harsh result that strikes many as unfair.
But the rule has important limits, and most of the time a jury gets to decide whether your conduct rose to the level of contributory negligence.
The defendant must prove your negligence was a proximate cause of your injuries.
Causation analysis is critical. Just because you were imperfect doesn’t mean you caused your own harm.
Last clear chance may allow recovery if the defendant had the final opportunity to avoid the accident. This is the most commonly successful exception.
Willful and wanton negligence by the defendant overcomes your ordinary negligence. In cases involving drunk driving, professional violations, or conscious disregard of known dangers, this exception can save an otherwise barred case.
The key is thorough investigation and legal analysis before accepting that contributory negligence bars your case. Many viable cases are rejected by attorneys who don’t fully understand these exceptions or who lack the trial experience to fight contributory negligence defenses.
Questions for your lawyer
If you’ve been seriously injured and told contributory negligence bars your case, the question shouldn’t be “was I at fault?” but rather:
- Did my conduct proximately cause my injuries?
- Did the defendant have the last clear chance?
- Was the defendant’s conduct willful and wanton?
- Does the sudden emergency exception apply?
Those questions require experienced legal analysis, not assumptions.
Next Steps: Protecting Your Rights Despite Contributory Negligence
If you’ve been injured in Virginia and are concerned about contributory negligence, here are some steps to take
Act quickly. Evidence disappears. Witnesses forget. Companies destroy records. The sooner you involve an attorney, the better your chances of preserving evidence that could defeat contributory negligence.
Get an experienced evaluation. Contributory negligence cases often go to trial because defendants know the defense is powerful. You need an attorney with substantial trial experience and specific knowledge of the exceptions.
Don’t accept early settlement pressure. Insurance companies use contributory negligence to pressure plaintiffs into accepting low settlements or walking away. “Take this now or you’ll get nothing” is a common tactic. Consult an attorney before accepting any offer.
Be thorough in your case investigation. Defeating contributory negligence requires detailed evidence about what the defendant did wrong, when they had opportunities to avoid the accident, and whether your conduct actually caused the harm. Superficial investigation isn’t enough.
Consider the defendant’s status. If you were injured by a professional (commercial truck driver, medical provider, bus driver), or by someone committing an egregious violation (extreme DUI, reckless driving), willful and wanton negligence may apply.
Bottom Line
Because Virginia follows a strict contributory negligence rule, insurance companies aggressively argue that injured people were partially at fault. If that argument succeeds, compensation may be completely barred — unless a legal exception applies.
Contact MartinWren, P.C.
If you’ve been seriously injured in Virginia and were told contributory negligence bars your case, we offer free consultations to evaluate:
- Whether contributory negligence actually applies
- Whether exceptions like last clear chance or willful and wanton negligence might save your case
- What evidence exists to defeat the contributory negligence defense
- What your case is actually worth
Don’t let Virginia’s harsh contributory negligence rule prevent you from getting the evaluation your case deserves.
Call us today for a free consultation.
This article is legal information only and is not legal advice. Individual outcomes depend on specific facts and evidence. This information does not create an attorney-client relationship. Consult a qualified attorney about your specific situation.
Originally published December 30, 2015 | Substantially updated by Robert Byrne on January 10, 2026
Call (434) 817-3100 or complete a Case Evaluation form
