784 S.E.2d 698
Va.2016Background
- Plaintiff Soggin (as administrator of decedent Evan Soggin) sued riding instructor Keri Saporito for wrongful death, alleging negligent training/horse selection.
- Defense counsel Ragland and Narod initially drafted jury instructions using the phrase “sole cause” (reflecting a theory about Virginia’s equine activity statutes), then revised the issues instruction during a short recess when that theory was rejected, but inadvertently left the findings instruction unchanged.
- The findings instruction reading to the jury included “sole cause”; the error was noticed the next morning when the jury asked a question, and counsel delivered a corrected written instruction substituting “a proximate cause.”
- The jury returned a verdict for the defendant; plaintiff moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict alleging counsel misconduct; the trial court denied the motion but found the error was inadvertent yet sanctionable and ordered each defense attorney to pay $200 to Northern Virginia Legal Services.
- The sanctions order did not identify statutory or rule authority; defense counsel appealed the monetary sanctions to the Supreme Court of Virginia.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had authority to impose monetary sanctions on defense counsel for submitting an erroneous jury instruction (found to be inadvertent) | The mistaken instruction tainted the jury process and justified sanctioning counsel | The error was inadvertent, promptly corrected, and monetary sanctions lacked statutory or rule-based authority; if sanctionable, sanction should be under contempt or rule but those do not apply | Reversed: trial court abused its discretion because it lacked statutory or rule authority to impose monetary sanctions for an inadvertent instruction error |
Key Cases Cited
- Environment Specialist, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank Northwest, N.A., 291 Va. 111 (trial court cannot impose monetary sanctions on attorneys absent statute or rule)
- Nusbaum v. Berlin, 273 Va. 385 (trial court’s inherent disciplinary power does not include monetary sanctions)
- Shebelskie v. Brown, 287 Va. 18 (abuse-of-discretion standard applies to sanctions under Code § 8.01-271.1)
- Singleton v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 542 (intent is required for criminal contempt convictions)
- Switzer v. Switzer, 273 Va. 326 (standard of review for imposition of sanctions)