Opinion ID: 1282545
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Contributory Negligence of Shaw.

Text: Todt contends that Shaw was guilty of contributory negligence because, she says, Shaw did not give a proper left-hand signal and did not look in her rear-view mirror prior to making the turn. Shaw testified that as soon as she slowed down she turned her left-turn signal on, stopped, and waited for two cars to pass by her. She stated one car had already passed her and the second car got half-way past her when the accident happened. On cross-examination, Shaw admitted that she had not looked in her rear view mirror before stopping, but denied waiting until she had completely stopped to turn her signal light on. The witness Key testified that the Shaw vehicle, when he first saw it, was stopped with the left-turn signal blinking and Todt's vehicle was approximately six car lengths away (90 to 100 feet). The testimony of Key and Shaw support a finding by the jury that Shaw gave a proper left-turn signal. Shaw admitted that she did not look to the rear, but such a duty is not invariably required of one in her situation. In Brown v. Wright, 216 Va. 10, 11-12, 216 S.E.2d 13, 15 (1975), we said: The basis of the motion to strike was that as a matter of law Brown was guilty of negligence which was a proximate cause of the accident in that, by her own testimony, she failed to look in her rear view mirror before bringing her vehicle to a stop. The evidence, however, viewed in the light most favorable to Brown, does not establish that her actions constituted contributory negligence as a matter of law. It does no more than raise an issue of fact to be resolved by the jury. Brown's testimony was that she looked in her rear view mirror as she drove along Route 337 but did not look as she prepared to make her left turn. The driver of a front car, however, is not required to be constantly on the lookout for a following vehicle. It was for the jury to determine whether she acted with reasonable care under the circumstances. [Citations omitted.] The issue of contributory negligence of Shaw was submitted to the jury under appropriate instructions, and the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Shaw, supports the jury's finding.