As we have explained before, in Virginia, there are multiple ways to be guilty of Reckless Driving in Virginia. Of course, driving at extremely high speeds is one of them. But also driving in a manner that demonstrates a conscious disregard for life and property is another. To that point, in 2024, there are a couple of cases that may help you understand what type of analysis the Court will undertake in considering your driving behavior if you’re charged with Reckless Driving, not due solely to speed.
Konadu v. Commonwealth, 79 Va. App. 606 (2024)
In this case the Virginia Court of Appeals affirmed a Reckless Driving conviction under Va Code Section 46.2-853. There, the driver picked up some takeout food with her daughter when some food spilled on the floor. The driver then reached over to the passenger side of the footwell, did not feel the vehicle change direction, and eventually heard a “boom.” As it turns out, the driver’s vehicle left its lane of travel, crossed over a median and the opposite lanes of traffic, hit a curb, and struck four people, one of whom later died. At trial, the lead detective further testified that the vehicle traveled 280.7 feet from the point when it initially left its lane, and he observed no skid marks. This testimony coupled with the trial court’s additional finding that no evidence was presented that the driver took any evasive action, that she looked down for a considerable amount of time when she learned food had spilled, and that she appeared to not realize that she struck pedestrians until after the crash was enough for the Court of Appeals to affirm the conviction.
Nicholson v. Commonwealth, No. 1431-22-1, 2023 WL 8939183, (Va. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2023).
Here, the Court of Appeals upheld the driver’s involuntary manslaughter conviction. In Virginia, Code Section 18.2-36.1(B) defines the offense as driving in a manner that was “so gross, wanton and culpable as to show a reckless disregard for human life…” The victim was pulling out from a parking lot when the appellant struck her. At trial, the court found that appellant was traveling 77/45 mph at the time of impact. It further found that the appellant was accelerating just before impact. The court also noted that the appellant knew that the roadway had multiple curb cuts and businesses. In affirming the conviction, the Court of Appeals opined that this case was not a conviction on speed alone, and implicated “far more” dangerous behavior. “[T]he evidence proved that the appellant drove his Challenger at a very high rate of speed, over a short period of time, while repeatedly changing lanes on a city street bordered by sidewalks in a mixed residential and commercial neighborhood. . .”
Reckless Driving did not occur simply because an accident occurred.
Of course, the cases discussed above involve egregious driving behavior. To be clear, the Virginia Supreme Court has held that the “mere happening of an accident” does not constitute reckless driving. Indeed, in Powers v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 386 (1970), the Court found that the government failed to prove Reckless Driving when a driver was last seen before a crash driving away “in kind of a rapid manner.” Later, the driver’s wrecked vehicle was discovered in a ditch, and he was found lying on the other side of the roadway. A law enforcement investigation revealed that the vehicle left impressions on the roadway over 840 feet away as well as “debarked” two trees that were 20 feet apart before the vehicle came to a rest in the ditch.
In overturning the driver’s Reckless Driving conviction, the Supreme Court stated:
We have no way of determining from the evidence in this record how and why the accident happened. The momentum of the automobile and its erratic course may be attributed to the accelerator sticking or a defect in the car’s steering mechanism over which the defendant had no control. The defendant may have suffered a sudden illness, or he may have been confronted with a sudden emergency not caused by his own negligence…
The Commonwealth’s evidence leaves much to speculation and conjecture as to what caused defendant to lose control of the car. We cannot say that the evidence here excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and is consistent only with the guilt of the defendant.
What’s the take-away here?
Clearly the cases above involve very different facts, which represent the ends of the spectrum of whether driving behavior constitutes reckless driving. Of course, if your case involves facts somewhere in the middle, it will up for the Court (or jury) to decide whether you drove recklessly. That said, this should be a good reminder that driving is an inherently dangerous activity. Pay attention, abide by the speed limit, and get off the phone!
Still have questions?
Make sure to check out our Personal Injury & Criminal Defense Practice Pages where we’ve answered many other questions you likely have. Abrenio Law is a Personal Injury & Criminal Defense Law Firm representing individuals in Northern Virginia and throughout the Commonwealth. You can learn more about Abrenio Law by visiting our About Us page. You can also read about some of our Prior Results, and Read Our Reviews. Make sure to contact us at Ph. 703-570-4180 for your Free Consultation.