Negligence – Neighbors ordered to pay $300,000 for boundary wall collapse

Where the evidence permitted the jury to conclude that the neighbors’ negligence caused the plaintiffs’ boundary wall to collapse, the plaintiffs were awarded$300,000 in compensatory and punitive damages.

Background

Thomas Weikel and Alexander E. Fucito Jr., as the Executor of the Estate of Cate McCoy, appeal the circuit court’s $300,000 judgment for compensatory and punitive damages to Glen and Patricia East for property damage.

Statute of limitations

The Easts’ property damage claim had a five-year limitations period. The Easts filed this action in April 2023, so their claims were time-barred only if they accrued before April 2018.

The Weikels contend that the claim accrued in 2017 when the builder improperly graded their lot, resulting in increased pressure against the Easts’ boundary wall. This court disagrees. The increased pressure, alone, was not a measurable harm, as it caused no functional damage to the Easts’ property.

The measurable harm in this case—the wall’s collapse—occurred in 2022, after the Weikels improperly dug and refilled a trench. The Easts filed their property damage suit in 2023, well within the limitations period.

Discovery sanction

The pretrial scheduling order required the Weikels to provide a summary of Speight’s testimony and opinions, as well as the grounds for those opinions, 90 days before trial. The order prohibited nondisclosed opinions at trial.

The Weikels designated Speight as an expert and disclosed that he would testify about the reasons for the boundary wall’s collapse. At trial, Speight testified that he formed his opinion about the cause of the collapse based, in part, on his calculations of the load on the wall.

Yet, his expert designation failed to provide the Easts with the purported calculations Speight used to form his opinion. The circuit court was well within its authority to sanction the Weikels for the nondisclosure by instructing the jury to disregard Speight’s testimony.

Sufficiency

The evidence presented at trial permitted the jury to conclude that the Weikels’ negligence caused the Easts’ boundary wall to collapse, resulting in compensable damages. The Weikels destabilized the wall by digging a trench next to it, then repouring sand onto the wall. In the middle of this construction, the boundary wall collapsed onto the Easts’ gas line.

Sinclair opined that a change in grade on one side of the wall caused a lateral pressure pushing the opposite side of the wall, which supported the inference that the Weikels’ actions caused the boundary wall collapse. Accordingly, the evidence supports the jury’s conclusion that the Weikels breached their duty of ordinary care and negligently damaged the Easts’ property.

Further, knowing that the wall was unstable and near the gas meter, the Weikels endangered the Easts’ health and safety by throwing sand back into a trench they had dug next to the wall. In addition to the danger to their health and safety, Glen East recounted the emotional toll that the wall’s instability had on them. These facts permitted the jury to conclude that the Weikels created a nuisance on the East’ property, so the Easts were entitled to compensation for the physical and emotional injuries that they sustained as a result.

Turning to the trespass claim, the record supports the jury’s conclusion that the wall then fell because the Weikels dug a trench right next to it, which compromised the structural integrity of the wall by changing the lateral pressure. The Weikels then aggravated that instability by putting sand against the wall to alleviate the pressure on their deck. These acts culminated in the wall collapsing onto the Easts’ property, thus invading their property and interfering with their property interests.

Damages

The Easts introduced evidence of the costs associated with replacing the boundary wall with a retaining wall, which totaled around $90,882.25. Given the evidence of actual losses and emotional suffering, this court finds no abuse of discretion by the circuit court affirming the jury’s $100,000 compensatory damages award. And given the Weikels’ willful conduct, knowing the risks involved, the $200,000 award for punitive damages was not plainly wrong.

Remaining arguments

The Weikels’ remaining arguments challenge the admissibility of several exhibits and the circuit court’s jury instruction rulings. But the arguments sections in support of these assignments of error cite to no authority in support of their arguments and instead are riddled with conclusory assertions and requests for relief. Consequently, their brief does not comply with Rule 5A:20(e) and that failure is significant, so these arguments are waived.

Affirmed.

Weikel v. East, Case No. 0157-25-1, June 30, 2026. CAV (unpublished opinion) (Ortiz). From the Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk (Lindsey). Gregory S. Larsen (Larsen Carnes, P.C., on briefs), for appellants. Joseph V. Sherman (William B. Newman; Poole Brooke Plumlee, P.C., on brief), for appellees. VLW 026-7-266. 16 pp.

Full-Text Opinion