
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: TUESDAY, June 12, 1990                   TAG: 9006120427
SECTION: VIRGINIA                    PAGE: B-2   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: By NEAL THOMPSON NEW RIVER VALLEY BUREAU
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

BALCONY COLLAPSE APPEAL REJECTED

Three Virginia Tech students injured five years ago when an apartment balcony collapsed won't be able to collect any money from the company that owned the apartment building, the state Supreme Court has ruled.

Last week's ruling upheld a previous ruling in Montgomery County Circuit Court.

The case has been dragged through the court system since the first lawsuits were filed soon after the October 1985 collapse at the Foxridge Apartments in Blacksburg.

It began when Dinell Hess, 23, Rachel Fain, 23, and Vera Anne Smith, 26, each filed suit against Snyder-Hunt Property Management Inc. and Foxridge Apartments seeking damages for their injuries and emotional distress.

Hess and Smith each asked for $500,000 in damages and Fain asked for $250,000.

Previous testimony in the case showed that the three defendants and at least nine other students fell to the ground when the third-floor balcony collapsed beneath them at a homecoming party. The balcony crashed through an empty second-floor balcony before hitting the ground.

In May 1989, a Montgomery County jury found that Snyder-Hunt and Foxridge were negligent and awarded a total of $70,000 to the three defendants. Hess, who suffered a crushed vertebra and spent several weeks in a body cast, was awarded $40,000; Fain, who suffered a strained back, was awarded $20,000; and Smith, who injured her right knee, was awarded $10,000.

But soon after that, Circuit Judge Kenneth Devore overturned the jury's verdict, saying not enough evidence had been presented to support its decision.

Fain, who lives in South Carolina, decided not to appeal.

But Hess, of Pittsburgh, and Smith, who now lives in Richmond, appealed three rulings Devore made just prior to the jury trial, stating that one of his rulings was based on a law that was unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court decided in January to let two of Devore's rulings in the case stand and to consider just one of the appeal requests. That request claimed that the five-year statute of limitations on improperly built or defective structures was unconstitutional.

"The Supreme Court rejected these contentions and held that the statute was constitutional," a summary of the court ruling stated.

by CNB