## Facts

- A two-car collision occurred at the intersection of 13th Street and Michigan Avenue, N.W., in Washington, D.C.
- Minda Massengale drove eastbound on Michigan Avenue and entered the intersection on a green light.
- Her driver’s license required corrective lenses, but she drove without glasses and was praying while driving.
- Marteal Pitts drove westbound on Michigan Avenue and attempted a left turn onto 13th Street after seeing Massengale’s vehicle several car lengths away.
- The vehicles collided as Pitts executed the left turn.
- Minda Massengale sued Pitts for negligence and personal injuries; her husband, Jack Massengale, asserted a derivative claim for loss of consortium.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court clearly erred in finding that Minda Massengale was contributorily negligent and that her negligence was a substantial factor in causing the collision, thereby barring her recovery.
2. Whether the injured spouse’s contributory negligence automatically bars the non-injured spouse’s loss-of-consortium claim.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the judgment against Minda Massengale on her negligence claim because the trial court’s contributory-negligence finding was supported by the evidence and not clearly erroneous.
- The appellate court reversed the judgment against Jack Massengale on his loss-of-consortium claim.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings to evaluate the consortium claim under the correct legal framework.

## Legal Principles

- Contributory negligence is established when the defendant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care and that the failure was a substantial factor in causing the injury.
- Violation of a traffic regulation may create a presumption of negligence, rebuttable only by proof that the violator did all a reasonable person seeking to comply with the law would do.
- In the District of Columbia, a plaintiff’s contributory negligence that proximately contributes to the injury is a complete bar to the plaintiff’s recovery on a negligence claim.
- Loss of consortium is derivative in the sense that it arises from injury to a spouse, but it is a distinct cause of action belonging to the non-injured spouse.
- The injured spouse’s contributory negligence does not automatically extinguish the other spouse’s loss-of-consortium claim; affirmative defenses must be analyzed as applied to the consortium claimant rather than mechanically carried over.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the bar to Minda Massengale’s personal-injury recovery based on contributory negligence, but held that her contributory negligence did not, by itself, dispose of her husband’s loss-of-consortium claim, which required separate consideration on remand.


Massengale v. Pitts, 737 A.2d 1029 (D.C. 1999)