More of Friday's Virginia Supreme Court opinions

In Maddox v. Commonwealth, the Virginia Supreme Court in an opinion by Justice Kinser held that the plaintiff's nuisance claims were within the sovereign immunity of the Commonwealth and not within the exceptions to it created by the Virginia Tort Claims Act.

In Southern Floors and Acoustics, Inc. v. Max-Yeboah and Food Lion, Inc. v. Max-Yeboah, two cases consolidated on appeal, the Virginia Supreme Court held, among other things, that the property owner Food Lion could not be liable for the negligence of its independent contractor.

In Cochran v. Fairfax County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Virginia Supreme Court in an opinion by Senior Justice Russell decided three consolidated appeals involving the awarding of zoning variances, concluding that the variances were improperly granted in each case, because "[w]ithout any variances, each of the properties retained substantial beneficial uses and substantial value."

In O'Neill v. Windshire-Copeland Assoc., L.P., the Virginia Supreme Court held that the defendant could assert the defense of contributory negligence, even though the apartment railing plaintiff fell over was not constructed up to code, rejecting plaintiff's arguments based on section 483 of the Second Restatement of Torts. The Court distinguished the law of assumption of risk, and held that contributory negligence was available as a defense unless there was something in the statute violated which indicated a legislative intent to preclude a contributory negligence defense.

In Commissary Concepts Mgmt. Corp. v. Mziguir, the Virginia Supreme Court in an opinion by Justice Lacy reversed the plaintiff's verdict in a malicious prosecution case, concluding "the evidence insufficient as a matter of law to support a finding that the prosecution against Mziguir was instituted without probable cause."

In Filak v. George, the Virginia Supreme Court in an opinion by Justice Keenan affirmed the trial court's order sustaining defendant's demurrer to plaintiffs' claim of constructive fraud with respect to failure to obtain insurance, where the Court concluded the claim was barred by the economic loss rule. The Court also affirmed the trial court's ruling for the defendant on a motion to strike the evidence on the plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, where the plaintiffs could not prove damages.

In Video Zone, Inc. v. KF&F Properties, Inc., the Virginia Supreme Court in an opinion by Justice Keenan affirmed the trial court's construction of a commercial lease, that the tenant was required to repair heating and cooling systems on the roof of the building. The appeals court agreed that the terms of the lease were ambiguous, and that the trial court's resolution of the ambiguity was supported by the evidence.

In Richmeade, LP v. City of Richmond, the Virginia Supreme Court in an opinion by Justice Lacy held that the three-year statute of limitations for implied contracts rather the five-year statute for injury to property applied to the plaintiff's inverse condemnation claims.