Call Us Now
202-960-4596
Schedule a Free Consultation
A recent federal appellate decision provides helpful guidance on a recurring question in Virginia injury litigation: Does extreme speeding, on its own, qualify as “willful and wanton negligence”?
In Vasterling v. Dirle, No. 23-1702 (4th Cir. Nov. 12, 2025), the Fourth Circuit held that a driver traveling 81 mph in a 45-mph zone did not, by itself, meet Virginia’s highest negligence standard. The ruling summarizes decades of Virginia case law and explains when speeding may—and may not—rise to willful and wanton conduct.
Because the opinion is unpublished, it is not a binding authority, but it serves as useful persuasive guidance for how courts may view similar cases.
Virginia recognizes several levels of negligence. Willful and wanton negligence applies only when a driver acts with a conscious disregard of a known, likely risk of harm. It involves a heightened mental state and is found only in limited circumstances.
To understand how Virginia distinguishes criminal reckless driving from the civil negligence standards involved in injury cases, see our guide to Reckless vs. Negligent Driving in Virginia.
The Fourth Circuit reversed the trial court’s finding of willful and wanton negligence, emphasizing that:
Without such factors, even significant speeding falls under simple or gross negligence.
The opinion identifies several scenarios where speeding may cross into willful and wanton conduct.
Examples include:
Courts require evidence that the driver was alerted to a specific danger.
Alcohol or drug use alone is not enough. However, impairment combined with ignored warnings or erratic behavior may establish the heightened mental state.
This applies primarily to commercial drivers who knowingly break safety protocols required by CDL training or employer policies. Documentation of such training can support the inference of willful and wanton conduct.
Virginia follows strict contributory negligence. If the injured person is even slightly at fault, recovery may be barred, unless the defendant’s conduct meets the willful-and-wanton threshold. This ruling shows how difficult it is to reach that threshold based on speeding alone.
Punitive damages are reserved for conduct approaching intentional wrongdoing. The decision reinforces that punitive claims require more than excessive speed.
To determine whether willful and wanton negligence may apply, lawyers examine:
Cases involving only speed typically proceed under the doctrine of simple negligence.
Although Vasterling v. Dirle provides a well-organized summary of Virginia’s willful-and-wanton framework, it is:
For reference, the federal docket is available through the government repository: GovInfo Docket Summary for No. 23-1702
Legal-press coverage also discusses the case: Virginia Lawyers Weekly’s summary
At this stage, the decision functions as persuasive authority rather than controlling law. Many courts may find its analysis helpful, but state courts are not required to follow it until the Supreme Court of Virginia addresses the issue.
This framing is important for readers: The decision reflects how a federal appellate panel interpreted Virginia law, but outcomes will depend on the specific facts of each case.
For additional public commentary, a detailed breakdown of the ruling appears here: Casemine legal analysis
Our attorneys analyze whether aggravating factors existed and secure evidence early, including:
We assess whether the conduct falls under simple negligence, gross negligence, or reaches the level of willful and wanton negligence.
If you or a family member was injured by a speeding or reckless driver in Virginia, our Virginia car accident attorneys can review the circumstances and explain how this framework may apply to your case.
Have you or your loved one sustained injuries in Washington DC, Maryland or Virginia? Regan Zambri Long PLLC has the best lawyers in the country to analyze your case and answer the questions you may have.