## Facts

- Husband and wife visited a friend’s home; the wife drove and parked the car in the driveway near the house, angled with the rear close to the dwelling.
- After being at the house, the husband left and waited outside for more than two hours; he later asked the wife if she was ready to leave, and she said no.
- About 45–50 minutes later, the wife left the house, looked for her husband, did not see him, and assumed he had walked home through nearby woods.
- The wife entered the vehicle, started it, and began backing to avoid a hole in the driveway and a nearby parked truck.
- After the car backed approximately 1.5–2 feet, it struck the husband.
- The wife admitted she did not look behind her or use the rearview mirror before backing.
- The wife testified she could not have seen the husband immediately before backing because he was in a squatting position behind the car.
- The husband testified he had been squatting about 3–4 feet behind the left rear side of the car for 20–30 minutes before the wife came out and entered the vehicle.
- The husband sued for negligence; a jury awarded him $6,000, and judgment was entered on the verdict.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the wife was negligent in backing the car without looking.
2. Whether the husband was contributorily negligent as a matter of law by squatting behind the vehicle, thereby barring recovery.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the judgment for the husband.
- The evidence permitted the jury to find the wife breached a duty of ordinary care by backing without looking behind or using mirrors.
- The husband’s alleged contributory negligence presented fact questions for the jury and was not established as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- Actionable negligence requires a legal duty, breach of that duty, and resulting injury.
- A driver must exercise ordinary care when operating a vehicle, including maintaining a reasonable lookout before backing.
- Contributory negligence remains a complete bar to recovery in Virginia when proven; however, it is for the court only when reasonable minds could not differ on the plaintiff’s fault and causal contribution.

## Conclusion

The court left the jury’s verdict intact because the wife’s admitted failure to look before backing supported negligence, and the husband’s conduct in being behind the car did not compel a finding of contributory negligence as a matter of law.


Jordan v. Jordan, 220 Va. 160, 257 S.E.2d 761 (Va. 1979)