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

Rule:

To constitute actionable negligence, there must be a legal duty, a breach thereof, and a consequent injury which could have been reasonably foreseen by the exercise of reasonable care and prudence. Negligence cannot be presumed from the mere happening of an accident, and the burden is on the plaintiff who alleges negligence to present evidence of preponderant weight from which a jury can find that the defendant's negligence was a proximate cause of the accident.

Facts:

Plaintiff husband, John Will Jordan, squatted down behind the defendant wife’s car and she backed over him. Plaintiff filed a personal injury action against his wife, and the trial court rendered judgment in plaintiff’s favor. Defendant sought review, contending that the evidence was insufficient to establish actionable negligence, and that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. 

Issue:

Was the evidence sufficient to establish actionable negligence, thereby rendering the defendant wife liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff husband?  

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court reversed the judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff husband. The court noted that in order to constitute actionable negligence, there must be a legal duty, a breach thereof, and a consequent injury which could have been reasonably foreseen by the exercise of reasonable care and prudence. In this case, the court found that the plaintiff husband failed to establish actionable negligence and failed to present evidence that defendant's negligence was the proximate cause of the accident. Furthermore, because the defendant wife could not have reasonably foreseen that the plaintiff husband put himself in a dangerous position behind the car, she had no duty of inspection.