Boyd v. McKeever

• Decision Date: 28 March 1969
• Docket Number: Docket No. 4986,No. 2,2
• Citation: 168 N.W.2d 641,16 Mich.App. 686
• Parties: Darlene BOYD, a minor, by her next friend, Steave Boyd, and Steave Boyd, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Francis H. McKEEVER and Denise McKeever, Defendants-Appellees
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 641

168 N.W.2d 641

16 Mich.App. 686

Darlene BOYD, a minor, by her next friend, Steave Boyd, and Steave Boyd, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Francis H. McKEEVER and Denise McKeever, Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No. 4986.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 2.

March 28, 1969.

Released for Publication July 1, 1969.

Robert W. Moss, Moss & Williams, Detroit, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Davidson, Gotshall, Kelly, Halsey & Kohl, Detroit, for defendants-appellees.

Before FITZGERALD, P.J., and BURNS and BRONSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs appeal a directed verdict of no cause of action.

Two boys met three girls, including plaintiff Darlene Boyd, in a pizza parlor, and they decided to go for a joy ride. As is often the case, the boys' car was low on gasoline, but Denise McKeever was using her father's car and the gasoline supply was ample, so the group decided to use the defendants' automobile for their joy ride. The group did not have any particular destination; they just rode. Suggestions were made by various members of the group as to where to drive, but the final determination was Denise's. The ride ended in an accident in which the plaintiff, Darlene Boyd, was injured. Plaintiff claims that the joy ride was a joint enterprise and that the Michigan guest-passenger act, C.L.S.1961, § 257.401 (Stat.Ann.1968 Rev. § 9.2101) is not applicable.

The rule applied to the question of whether a joint enterprise exists between the passenger and the driver of an automobile is set out in House v. Gibbs (1966), 4 Mich.App. 519, 523, 145 N.W.2d 248, 250, where the Court quoted Emons v. Shiraef (1960), 359 Mich. 526, 102 N.W.2d 490, as follows:

"To constitute a joint enterprise between a passenger and the driver of an automobile, within the meaning of the law of negligence, there must be such a community of interest in its operation as to give each an equal right of control. There must be a common responsibility for its negligent operation, and there can be no common responsibility unless there is a common right of control. It must be held that the driver is acting as the agent of the other members of the enterprise. The rule of joint enterprise in negligence cases is founded on the law of principal and agent."

A review of the record does not establish the necessary elements to constitute a joint enterprise.

Affirmed. Costs to appellee.