Jordan v. Jordan
257 S.E.2d 761, 1979 Va. LEXIS 247, 220 Va. 160 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A driver's duty to inspect the area behind their vehicle before backing up arises only when circumstances would lead a reasonable person to know or foresee a potential danger. Failure to look before backing is not actionable negligence if the driver had no reason to anticipate a person's presence in a dangerous position.
Facts:
- John Will Jordan and his wife, Lena Jordan, drove to a friend's farm for a social visit, where Lena parked their car in the driveway.
- After being inside for some time, John asked Lena if she was ready to leave, and she replied that she was not.
- John went back outside and, for 20-30 minutes, squatted approximately three to four feet behind the left rear of the car to watch for someone he hoped to speak with about a job.
- About 45 minutes after their conversation, Lena exited the house, looked for her husband but did not see him, and reasonably assumed he had walked home.
- Lena entered the car from the passenger side, slid over to the driver's seat, started the engine, and immediately backed up to maneuver around obstacles in the driveway.
- Lena did not look behind her or use her rearview mirror before backing the car.
- The car moved one and a half to two feet before it struck John, knocking him down and running over him, causing serious injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- John Will Jordan sued Lena Jordan for personal injuries in a state trial court.
- A jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, John Will Jordan, in the amount of $6,000.
- The trial court entered a judgment on the jury's verdict.
- Lena Jordan, the defendant, appealed the judgment to the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a driver commit actionable negligence by failing to look behind their vehicle before backing up when they could not have reasonably foreseen that another person had placed themselves in a position of danger behind the vehicle?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A driver's failure to look behind their vehicle before backing up does not constitute actionable negligence if they could not reasonably foresee the presence of a person in a position of danger. To establish actionable negligence, a plaintiff must prove a duty, a breach, and a consequent injury that was reasonably foreseeable. Here, Lena Jordan had no reason to foresee that her husband, an adult, would be squatting in a concealed position behind the car. Her assumption that he had walked home was reasonable under the circumstances. Therefore, the duty to inspect behind the vehicle never arose. Furthermore, her failure to use the rearview mirror was not the cause of the injury, as the uncontradicted evidence showed that his squatting position would have made him invisible in the mirror anyway.
Analysis:
This decision refines the scope of a driver's duty of care by tying it directly to the foreseeability of the specific risk. It establishes that a driver is not an insurer of safety and that the duty to check for hidden dangers is not absolute, but is triggered by circumstances that would alert a reasonable person to a potential hazard. The case sets a precedent that can shield defendants from liability in situations where a plaintiff's presence is completely unexpected and unforeseeable. It underscores that for negligence to be actionable, the defendant's specific act or omission must be the proximate cause of an injury that was a foreseeable consequence of that act or omission.
Unlock the full brief for Jordan v. Jordan