The Virginia Supreme Court convened on February 1, 2025, to deliberate on the case of 240378 Harris, et al. v. Howard, focusing on the application of the illegality defense in civil liability. The discussions centered around the interpretation of civil intent and its distinction from criminal intent, as established in the precedent case Osman v. Osman.

The first speaker argued that the Court of Appeals had misapplied the intent component of the illegality defense. He emphasized that civil intent is a lower standard than criminal intent, asserting that a person does not need to know their actions are wrongful to meet the civil intent standard. This argument was supported by the Osman case, which clarified that even individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity can still possess civil intent, thereby allowing for civil liability.

The speaker further contended that the introduction of a criminal procedure statute into the civil illegality analysis was inappropriate, as it diverged from established legal principles. He maintained that the absence of criminal culpability does not negate the original intent behind an action, reinforcing that the key question is whether the individual acted volitionally.

In response, Ashley Davis, representing Dennis Howard, argued that the Court of Appeals correctly reversed the trial court's summary judgment based on the doctrine of illegality and gross negligence. She highlighted the procedural posture of the case, indicating that the trial court's decision was premature and did not adequately consider the evidence presented.

The session concluded with both sides presenting their arguments regarding the applicability of criminal standards in civil cases and the implications for the ongoing litigation. The court is expected to issue a ruling that will clarify the standards for civil intent and the relevance of criminal procedure in civil liability cases.