personal injury is visible or where the seriousness of the collision would lead a reasonable person to assume there must have been resulting injuries.’ ” Neel, 49 Va.App. at 395, 641 S.E.2d at 778 (quoting People v. Carter, 243 Cal.App.2d 239, 52 Cal.Rptr. 207, 208 (1966)). We then evaluated the nature of the impact and damage. Thus, the minimal nature of the damage to [victim’s] vehicle was insufficient to put appellant on notice that she had been injured. Although the evidence would support a finding that appellant’s front bumper and hood may have sustained some damage in the collision, no evidence establishes that appellant would have known about this damage before he fled the scene. Id. at 397, 641 S.E.2d 775, 641 S.E.2d at 779. See also Kil, 12 Va.App. at 812-13, 407 S.E.2d at 680 (<HOLDING>). Neel is instructive. Neel, as in the instant
recognizing the extensive and ongoing impact of sendero luminoso holding evidence sufficient to prove knowledge where impact caused extensive damage to right side of van bodies of three of the victims were thrown distances of between 45 and 135 feet from the vehicle and residents inside nearby homes described the impact as a loud noise holding that medical evidence and a statistical study by the military was sufficient evidence to prove a discriminatory impact recognizing impact of child support guidelines holding that the impact upon the victims is relevant to circumstances of the crime