Antoinette Poulin v. Fred Graham
| Citation | 147 A. 698, 102 Vt. 307 |
| Case Date | November 13, 1929 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Vermont |
102 Vt. 307
ANTOINETTE POULIN
v.
FRED GRAHAM
Supreme Court of Vermont
November 13, 1929
October Term, 1929.
Fact Treated as Established by Parties at Trial---Construction of Record on Defendant's Motion for Directed Verdict---Master and Servant---Right of One Injured by Servant's Negligence To Proceed against Master---Right of Action by Married Woman Injured by Husband's Negligence While Latter in Business of Employer.
1. In
ACTION OF TORT for negligence, where plaintiff was injured while riding in defendant's truck with his consent and as guest of driver thereof, who was then in employ of defendant and acting within his employment, relationship between driver and plaintiff as husband and wife at such time held established, in that transcript plainly showed that throughout trial everybody connected with it understood that such relation existed at time mentioned.
2. On defendant's motion for directed verdict in his favor, while Supreme Court is required to construe record against defendant, record must also be construed reasonably.
3. Right of one injured by servant's negligence to proceed against master under doctrine of respondeat superior is in no sense subordinate or secondary to right against servant, but is primary and independent, and is not affected by plaintiff's inability to sue servant nor dependent on right of master to sue him.
4. Married woman, injured by negligence of husband in operation of truck belonging to employer and in employer's business, in which she was riding as guest with latter's consent, held to have right of action, against husband's employer, even though she could not sue her husband therefor.
ACTION OF TORT for negligence. Plea, general issue. Trial by jury at the June Term, 1929, Addison County, Buttles, J., presiding. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant excepted. The opinion states the case. Affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
J. A. McNamara for the plaintiff.
Present: WATSON, C. J., POWERS, SLACK, MOULTON, and WILLCOX, JJ.
OPINION
POWERS
[102 Vt. 309] The plaintiff was injured while riding with her husband in a truck which he was driving for the defendant who employed him. The negligence of the husband, the fact that he was acting within his employment at the time, that the plaintiff was riding by permission of the defendant, and was free from contributory negligence, were established by a verdict in her favor. By a motion for a verdict seasonably filed, the defendant questioned the right of the plaintiff to recover in an action predicated upon the personal negligence of her husband, though he was then acting as the defendant's servant. This motion was overruled and the defendant excepted.
The plaintiff argues that there is nothing in the record to show that the Poulins were husband and wife at the [102 Vt. 310] time of the accident. We take no time with this claim as the transcript plainly shows that throughout the trial everybody connected with it understood that that relation existed at the time mentioned; and while we are to construe this record against the defendant, Higgins, Admr. v. Metzger, 101 Vt. 285, 298, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mullally v. Langenberg Bros. Grain Co.
...by the defendant. Schubert v. Schubert Wagon Co., 249 N.Y. 253, 164 N.E. 42, affirming, 223 A.D. 502, 228 N.Y.S. 604; Poulin v. Graham, 102 Vt. 307, 147 A. 698; Hensel v. Hensel Yellow Cab Co., 209 Wis. 489, 245 N.W. 159; Met. Life Ins. Co. v. Huff, 48 Ohio App. 412, 194 N.E. 429; Chase v. ......
-
In re Estate of George H. Prouty
...Higgins, Admr. v. Metzger, 101 Vt. 285, 298, 143 A. 394, it is our duty to give it a reasonable construction, Poulin v. Graham, 102 Vt. 307, 310, 147 A. 698; Goodwin v. Gaston, 103 Vt. 357, 371, 154 A. 772. The only reasonable construction of the above-quoted language, we think, makes it me......
-
St. Albans Hospital v. City of St. Albans
...368. But we are bound to construe a record reasonably. Hanley v. Poultney, 100 Vt. 172, 174, 135 A. 713, 54 A.L.R. 371; Poulin v. Graham, 102 Vt. 307, 310, 147 A. 698; Goodwin v. Gaston, 103 Vt. 357, 371, 154 A. 772. This requirement applies to every part of this record, including the agree......
-
Beam v. Fish
...of that trial. It appears, construing the bills, as we must, strictly but reasonably against the excepting party ( Poulin v. Graham, 102 Vt. 307, 310, 147 A. 698; Higgins v. Metzger, 101 Vt. 285, 298, 143 A. 394; Hanley v. Town of Poultney, 100 Vt. 172, 174, 135 A. 713, 54 A.L.R. 371; St. A......