Opinion ID: 1356320
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: misuse and contributory negligence

Text: Standing alone, such findings are not enough to establish liability. A defendant is not liable if the plaintiff was guilty of negligence which proximately contributed to his injury, and implied warranty does not apply when the product is being used in a manner ... for which it was not intended. Turner v. Manning, etc., 216 Va. 245, 252, 217 S.E.2d 863, 869 (1975). Invoking these two rules without distinction, Ford argues that plaintiff cannot recover because she misused her vehicle and was contributorily negligent as a matter of law. In particular, Ford says that Divine's testimony shows that, while millions of drivers accomplish the task of shifting each day without any difficulty, plaintiff misplaced [the shift lever] somewhere between `park' and `reverse'; that she failed to jiggle the lever to be sure that the car was fully in park; that she left the motor running when she got out of the car; and that, but for such negligence, the accident would not have happened. Negligence, a breach of the duty of ordinary care under the circumstances, is a question of law only when it clearly appears that fair-minded jurors could not differ in resolving the question. Ford overlooks some of the facts and circumstances relevant to the question whether plaintiff exercised ordinary care in the use of her car. Even when the park gear was fully engaged, the gear indicator did not point directly to P. Aware of that fact, an ordinarily perceptive observer might be deceived by what he saw. There was a little bit of play in the shift lever, and the most dexterous operator might be unable to distinguish between play and a jiggle. Plaintiff engaged the emergency brake, which was not designed to hold while the transmission was in a powered gear, and the car, positioned on a slope, remained stationary. Under such circumstances, it would not be an act of negligence for a driver to leave the motor running. Finally, whether plaintiff exercised ordinary care in the use of her automobile must be determined in light of the fact that she had been assured and repeatedly reassured by trained mechanics that her transmission was in proper working order. Considering all the facts and circumstances, we agree with the trial judge that this was a jury question. And, since Ford does not challenge the court's instructions on this issue, we will not presume to substitute our judgment for that of the jury.