The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed a substantial six-figure personal injury verdict Tuesday, overturning a jury's award of $266,906.03 to a Virginia Beach woman injured in a severe car accident. The three-judge panel issued an unpublished per curiam opinion in *Vasterling v. Dirle*, reversing the district court's decision and remanding the case with instructions to enter final judgment in favor of defendant Alison Dirle.
The case arose from a February 16, 2022 car accident on Independence Boulevard, a major thoroughfare in Virginia Beach that features crossing medians allowing drivers to pause between lanes while awaiting traffic clearance to complete their traversal. Plaintiff Kaitlin Vasterling had successfully traversed the northbound half of Independence Boulevard and entered the median before proceeding into the road's southbound lanes.
According to the court documents, as Vasterling entered the southbound lanes, she observed another vehicle approaching rapidly. The accident occurred at this intersection, though the specific details of the collision and resulting injuries were not detailed in the available portion of the appeals court opinion.
Vasterling's lawsuit against Dirle alleged that Dirle's conduct preceding the severe car accident rose to the high standard of willful and wanton negligence under Virginia law. This elevated standard of negligence requires more than ordinary carelessness, demanding proof that the defendant acted with conscious disregard for the safety of others or with such recklessness that willful injury could be inferred.
The case was initially heard in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Norfolk, where Magistrate Judge Lawrence Richard Leonard presided over the proceedings. The matter proceeded as a diversity action, meaning it involved parties from different states with a dispute exceeding the federal court's jurisdictional threshold.
The jury in the district court found in favor of Vasterling and awarded her $266,906.03 in damages. However, Dirle appealed this verdict to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers federal appeals from district courts in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia.
The Fourth Circuit panel consisted of Circuit Judges Agee, Thacker, and Richardson. The case was submitted for consideration on December 16, 2025, and the court issued its decision on January 21, 2026, approximately one month later.
The appeals court's opinion was designated as unpublished, meaning it does not establish binding precedent within the Fourth Circuit. As noted in the court documents, "Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit." Such opinions typically address case-specific factual issues rather than establishing new legal principles.
Representing Dirle on appeal were attorneys John D. McGavin and Kara A. Schmidt from the law firm McGavin, Boyce, Bardot, Thorsen & Katz, P.C., based in Fairfax, Virginia. Vasterling was represented by attorney Robert J. Haddad from Ruloff, Swain, Haddad, Morecock, Talbert & Woodward, P.C., located in Virginia Beach, Virginia.
The Fourth Circuit's decision to reverse and remand with instructions to enter final judgment in favor of Dirle suggests the appeals court found fundamental errors in either the legal analysis or factual findings that supported the original verdict. While the complete reasoning for the reversal was not available in the provided court documents, such reversals in personal injury cases often involve questions about whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's findings or whether proper legal standards were applied.
The case represents a significant victory for Dirle, who faced a substantial monetary judgment. For Vasterling, the reversal eliminates what appeared to be a successful recovery for her injuries sustained in the February 2022 accident.
The notation "ON REHEARING" on the court documents indicates this decision came after the appeals court reconsidered the case, suggesting there may have been an initial ruling that was subsequently reviewed. Such rehearings are relatively uncommon and typically occur when a party identifies significant legal or factual errors in an initial decision.
The remand with instructions to enter final judgment in favor of Dirle is a definitive conclusion to the case at the district court level, barring any further appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, given the unpublished nature of the opinion and the case-specific facts involved, such an appeal would be unlikely to be accepted for review by the high court.
This case illustrates the challenges plaintiffs face in personal injury litigation when attempting to prove the elevated standard of willful and wanton negligence, particularly in motor vehicle accident cases where ordinary negligence standards typically apply.