Alesio v. Lococo
| Decision Date | 08 April 1938 |
| Docket Number | 30242 |
| Parties | ANDREA ALESIO, APPELLEE, v. ANTHONY LOCOCO, JR., APPELLANT |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the district court for Lancaster county: JEFFERSON H BROADY, JUDGE. Affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus by the Court.
1. In an automobile accident occurring in the state of Texas, the liability of the driver to his guest is determinable by the laws of that state, when pleaded.
2. Under the Texas guest statute, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St.Tex art. 6701b, gross negligence is such negligence as evidences reckless disregard of human life, or such conscious indifference to the rights of others as amounts to an intentional violation of them.
Appeal from District Court, Lancaster County; Broady, Judge.
Suit by Andrea Alesio against Anthony Lococo, Jr., to recover for personal injuries sustained in an automobile collision. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
L. R. Doyle, for appellant.
Jack W. Cohen and R. M. Anderson, contra.
Heard before GOSS, C. J., ROSE, DAY, PAINE and MESSMORE, JJ.
This is a suit by a guest for personal injuries sustained in a head-on collision with another automobile. The jury returned a verdict for $ 1,500, for which judgment was entered, and defendant appeals.
The defendant admits that the collision occurred, but denies he was guilty of gross negligence, and charges plaintiff with contributory negligence; alleges that plaintiff was acquainted with ability of defendant as a driver, and assumed the risk of travel in defendant's automobile.
The evidence discloses that the defendant was a football fan, who had driven to the Rose Bowl game in 1934, and planned to make the trip again in December, 1935. The plaintiff asked to be taken along, as he had two daughters living in California. Defendant said the car was full, but if anybody dropped out the plaintiff could ride with them, and just before starting one person decided not to go, and the plaintiff made the trip as a gratuitous guest, riding at all times in the back seat with the father of the defendant. Leaving Lincoln December 26, 1935, they made Dallas the first day, El Paso the second, Yuma, Arizona, the third, and Los Angeles the fourth day. On the return trip they left Los Angeles Thursday morning, January 9, 1936, and made Phoenix, Arizona, the first night. Leaving Phoenix the next morning on U.S. Highway No. 80, they reached a point between 15 and 17 miles west of Pecos, Texas, by about 8:00 p. m. that night. It was after dark, and all cars were using their headlights, when a head-on collision occurred.
Plaintiff claims this collision occurred as follows: One Carl Proctor was driving a Buick slowly westward, with proper care and caution, on the north and right-hand side of U.S. Highway No. 80, having just come out of a filling station located on the north side of the road. The defendant was coming around a curve, driving eastward at a high rate of speed in excess of 65 miles an hour, and in gross negligence, with a wanton and reckless disregard of human life and a conscious indifference to the consequences to others, ran his car on the wrong side of the highway, and, failing to see the said Buick, drove his automobile directly into it with great force and violence, so that the plaintiff suffered serious, painful, and permanent injuries, which first confined him to the Camp & Camp Hospital in Pecos, Texas, and thereafter in his home in Lincoln, Nebraska. The plaintiff testified that a short time before the crash he objected to the father of the defendant, who was sitting in the rear seat with him, and said the son was driving too fast; that the father spoke to the son, who answered, "What is the matter, you scared?"
The defendant testified that he was 32 years of age, lived in Lincoln all his life, and assisted his father in the grocery business; that he had known the plaintiff for 15 years, and that they reside in the same block, almost across the alley from each other, and that the plaintiff is in the fruit business in Lincoln. The defendant drove the car on the entire trip, and testified that at the point of collision there was a curve or bend where the accident occurred; that he did not see the Buick car until he was within 75 yards that he thought the Buick was coming clear over on the wrong side of the road, and therefore, in order to avoid a...
To continue reading
Request your trial