Legal Opinion · Dissent

Estelle W. Sligh v. John Doe

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Decided April 19, 1979No. 78-1312Published

1DissentWidener, Circuit Judge

I respectfully dissent.

In the case at bar, plaintiff brought suit under the Virginia uninsured motorist statute, Va.Code § 38.1-381(c)-(e). Section 38.-l-381(e) provides, in pertinent part: “If the owner or operator of any vehicle causing injury or damages be unknown, an action may be instituted against the unknown defendant as ‘John Doe’ . . . .” To maintain an action against “John Doe” under this statute, a plaintiff must prove that the operator of the vehicle is “unknown.” See Haymore v. Brizendine, 210 Va. 578, 172 S.E.2d 774, 777-78 (1970); Doe v. Simmers, 207 Va. 956, 154 S.E.2d 146,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Doe v. SimmersSupreme Court of Virginia · 1967
  2. Haymore v. BrizendineSupreme Court of Virginia · 1970

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API