Moreover, Worley's argument that he did not have the absolute right to control his guests misapprehends the standard of care owed. Worley did not have an absolute duty to control his guests; rather, he had an absolute duty to use ordinary care to control his guests and ensure their safety. See Coln, 966 S.W.2d at 39 ("`Ordinary, or reasonable, care is to be estimated by the risk entailed through probable dangers attending to the particular situation and is to be commensurate with the risk of injury.'" (quoting Doe, 845 S.W.2d at 178)); see also Frye v. Elkins, 22 Tenn.App. 317, 122 S.W.2d 827, 829 (1938) ("`Ordinary care is relative, and not absolute, and, being relative, is dependent upon the circumstances of each particular case.'"). Worley testified that at previous parties held for his teenage son, he had monitored guests and had "corralled" all of the cars behind a fence to be able to control the departure of intoxicated guests.

The backing of any vehicle entails a greater limitation of the view of the driver than would proceeding forward of the area to be traversed, which correspondingly requires greater vigilance and care on his part to avoid causing injury to persons who are known to be or likely to be in that area, whether the vehicle was being backed on a public street or on private property. Taulborg v. Andresen, 119 Neb. 273, 228 N.W. 528, 67 A.L.R. 642; Frye v. Elkins, 22 Tenn. App. 317, 122 S.W.2d 827, 118 A.L.R. 242; Ferris v. Patch, 119 Vt. 274, 126 A.2d 114, 63 A.L.R.2d 103. The trial court must instruct the jury on every reasonable theory of either party which finds support in the pleadings and evidence; and the failure to instruct upon decisive issues set forth in the pleadings and evidence is reversible error, particularly when the parties have brought to the attention of the court through requested instructions their theory of the case.

Backing is naturally more dangerous than driving forward, and, therefore, should require no less care than the latter. Hartzheim v. Smith, 238 Wis. 55, 298 N.W. 196; Taulborg v. Andresen, 119 Neb. 273, 228 N.W. 528, 67 A.L.R. 642; Frye v. Elkins, 22 Tenn. App. 317, 122 S.W.2d 827. In an Annotation entitled "Liability for damage or injury while automobile is being backed," 118 A.L.R. 242, the cases are reviewed and the general rule applicable under circumstances similar to those here is stated as follows on page 244: "In backing an automobile from a private driveway on to a public street, the driver must exercise that degree of caution that an ordinarily careful and prudent driver would exercise under similar circumstances."

There is no more reason why the driver of a vehicle should not keep a vigilant and constant lookout in the area into which he is moving a vehicle backward than it is where he is moving it forward. Owen v. Bost, supra; Fry v. Elkins, 22 Tenn. App. 317, 122 S.W.2d 827; 60 C.J.S. Motor Vehicles sec. 302, page 712. As has been held in numerous cases in this State, the rule for determining a motion for a directed verdict requires the trial Judge and reviewing Court on appeal to look to all of the evidence, to take the strongest legitimate view of it in favor of the opponent of the motion, and to allow all reasonable inferences from it in his favor; to discard all countervailing evidence, and if then, there is any dispute as to any material determinative evidence, or any doubt as to the conclusions to be drawn from the whole evidence, the motion must be denied and the case submitted to the jury.