Bredeweg v. Boyce

• Decision Date: 08 September 1948
• Docket Number: No. 54.,54.
• Citation: 33 N.W.2d 801,322 Mich. 298
• Parties: BREDEWEG v. BOYCE.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

322 Mich. 298

33 N.W.2d 801

BREDEWEG

v.BOYCE.

No. 54.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Sept. 8, 1948.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Appeal from Circuit Court, Kent County; William B. Brown, judge.

Action by Hannah E. Bredeweg (also known as Hannah E. Losey) against Lelia Boyce, administratrix of the estate of Howard Norman MacGregor, deceased, for injuries sustained by plaintiff in an automobile accident. From an adverse judgment, defendant appeals.

Judgment reversed without a new trial.

Before the Entire Bench.

Mitts & Smith, of Grand Rapids (F. Roland Allaben, of Grand Rapids, of counsel), for defendant and appellant.

Harold S. Sawyer, Jr., and Warner, Norcross & Judd, all of Grand Rapids, for plaintiff and appellee.

DETHMERS, Justice.

Defendant appeals from judgment for plaintiff for damages on account of personal injuries sustained by her in an accident which plaintiff claims was caused by the ordinary negligence of defendant's decedent in his operation of an automobile in which plaintiff was a passenger.

For some time prior to the accident plaintiff had received board and room from defendant's decedent, hereinafter called defendant, in exchange for which she did his housework, cooking and laundry and answered the telephone in his home. Plaintiff contends that, in consequence, she was his employee. The defense, on the other hand, denies the employer-employee relationship and terms the arrangement merely a ‘mutual undertaking’ for a ‘mutual cooperative household.’ For a period of two or three weeks, up until a few days before the accident, defendant had been sick and plaintiff had taken care of him.

On the day before the accident defendant drove an automobile from his home in Wayland to Lansing on what plaintiff calls a business trip and the defense insists was but a pleasure trip. He was accompanied by plaintiff. On the following day they left Lansing and while defendant was driving toward Williamston the accident occurred. Plaintiff testified as to her purpose in accompanying defendant on the trip, but, on objection by the defense, that testimony was stricken from the record. There is no other testimony explanatory of her presence in the automobile or her status as a passenger nor disclosing the reason for which she accompanied defendant on the trip.

If plaintiff was a guest passenger, her right to recover is barred by the so-called guest act. 1 Comp.Laws 1929, § 4648, Stat.Ann. § 9.1446. It is the contention of the defense ‘that there is no evidence in this case to take this case out from under the operation of the Michigan guest act.'

Plaintiff urges that the evidence establishes an employer-employee relationship between defendant and plaintiff; that there is no proof of any other relationship between them; that defendant had but a few days before risen from a sick bed on which he had been cared for by plaintiff; that these proofs presented a question of fact for determination by the jury as to whether plaintiff was a guest passenger.

The burden was upon plaintiff to establish every material element of her case by a preponderance of the evidence. An element essential to her case is the existence of some benefit flowing to defendant by reason of or in connection with her being a passenger at the time of the accident, which would amount to payment for her transportation. Peronto v. Cootware, 281 Mich. 664, 275 N.W. 724;Bushouse v. Brom, 297 Mich. 616, 298 N.W. 303;Herman v. Metal Office Furniture Co., 317...