of injury which would be attributed to a reasonable person under the circumstances of the case.” Kil v. Commonwealth, 12 Va.App. 802, 811, 407 S.E.2d 674, 679 (1991). “This approach ... has been characterized as ‘requiring subjective knowledge of the collision while holding the driver to a stricter reasonable man standard as to the fact or extent of the injury . . . . ” Id. at 810, 407 S.E.2d at 679 (quoting Commonwealth v. Kauffman, 323 Pa.Super. 363, 470 A.2d 634, 637 (1983)). Knowledge of injury may be imputed to a driver “where the fact of personal injury is visible or where the seriousness of the collision would lead a reasonable person to assume there must have been resulting injuries.” People v. Carter, 243 Cal.App.2d 239, 52 Cal.Rptr. 207, 208 (1966) (citation omitted) (<HOLDING>); see also Marjorie A. Caner, Annotation,
holding that where the police roadblock was intended to stop brower by physical impact and did so a seizure occurred holding that where impact slightly dam aged bumper or fender of both cars and bumper had to be pulled away from wheel of one so it could be moved collision was not of sufficient magnitude to compel the conclusion that injuries had probably occurred holding that after two years of litigation the employer had waived any right it had to compel arbitration holding that impact in the district resulting from the defendants conduct that occurred outside the district must be deliberate not incidental holding that plaintiff had not stated an equal protection claim where plaintiff had not alleged that the defendant treated him differently from anyone else who both had problems with alcohol and had been arrested