Bree v. Lamb
| Decision Date | 07 May 1935 |
| Citation | 178 A. 919,120 Conn. 1 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | BREE v. LAMB. |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Newell Jennings Judge.
Action by William A. Bree, administrator, to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's intestate, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant, Ferdinand R. Lamb and his heedless and reckless disregard of the rights of others, brought to the Superior Court and tried to the jury. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and appeal by the defendant.
No error.
In action for death when automobile in which plaintiff's intestate was riding skidded on highway and ran into fence instruction that, since driver was not receiving direct monetary consideration for transportation, before jury could find that intestate was a guest within statute exempting automobile host from liability to guest for mere negligent injury, it must appear that there was some benefit to intestate arising out of his position in company by which intestate and driver were employed, and that plaintiff had to prove such benefit, held not erroneous. Gen.St.1930, § 1628 (repealed).
Joseph B. Morse and Daniel D. Morgan, both of New Haven, for appellant.
William J. Carrig, of New Haven, for appellee.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY, JJ.
Plaintiff's intestate received fatal injuries when an automobile in which he was riding and which was driven by the defendant skidded upon the west surface of the road, left the highway and ran into a fence. It was the contention of the defendant that plaintiff's intestate was his guest within the meaning of section 1628 of the General Statutes, which denies recovery for injuries sustained by a guest unless the accident was intentional or caused by heedless and reckless disregard of his rights. Defendant assigns as error the action of the trial court in submitting this issue to the jury, and its refusal to set aside the verdict on the ground that upon the evidence it appeared that plaintiff's intestate was a guest as a matter of law. The jury could reasonably have found the following facts relevant to this issue: On the date of this accident defendant, plaintiff's intestate, and two other men, all employees of Sears, Roebuck Company, were en route from New Haven to Springfield in a car owned and operated by the defendant. Defendant was district manager of the New Haven district of the company, comprising some 30 stores in Connecticut and Massachusetts. He had called a business meeting of various employees of the company to be held that day at Springfield. Plaintiff's intestate and the other two members of the party were his subordinates, and it was their duty as employees of the company to attend the meeting. The four men had lunch together in New Haven on the day the meeting was to be held. Each owned and operated his own car and was given an allowance of 5 cents a mile toward the expense of its operation on company business. One of the men, Thomas, spoke of getting his car, and the defendant said they were all to ride with him. Thomas regarded this as an order, and all four men started off in defendant's car. It was the duty of the defendant to conduct the business of the company in his district as economically as possible, and the methods and manner of increasing the business of the company were discussed at the meetings called by him.
The cases in which we have considered the question of the character of the relationship requisite to constitute one a guest in an automobile within the meaning of our statute are reviewed in the recent case of Chaplowe v. Powsner, 119 Conn. 188, 175 A. 470, 95 A. L. R. 1177. It is unnecessary to elaborate upon what is there said. If the passenger in the car is enjoying the hospitality of the driver or owner without making any return therefor or conferring any benefit other than the pleasure of his company, he is a guest. If he is being transported for the mutual benefit of himself and the driver or owner of the car, he is not a guest. The benefit must be a tangible one growing out of a definite relationship. It may be incidental to such relationship. It need not be a consideration agreed upon for the transportation. Chaplowe v. Powsner, supra, and case there cited. Whether one is a guest must often resolve itself into a question of fact for the jury under appropriate instructions from the court. Kruy v. Smith, 108 Conn. 628, 630, 144 A. 304; Russell v. Parlee, 115 Conn. 687, 163 A. 404. The relationship of plaintiff's intestate and defendant was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duncan v. Hutchinson
... ... (Walker v. Adamson, 9 Cal.2d 287, 70 P.2d 914; ... Sigel, Adm'x, v. Gordon, Adm'r, 117 Conn ... 271, 167 A. 719; Bree, Adm'r, v. Lamb, 120 Conn ... 1, 178 A. 919; Smith v. Clute, 277 N.Y. 407, 14 ... N.E.2d 455, construing Montana statute and reversing ... Smith ... ...
-
Degenstein v. Ehrman
...Chaplowe v. Powsner, 119 Conn. 188, 191, 175 A. 470, 95 A.L.R. 1177; Crawford v. Foster, 110 Cal.App. 81, 87, 293 P. 841; Bree v. Lamb, 120 Conn. 1, 178 A. 919. Upon the facts claimed, there is nothing which would have warranted the jury in concluding that at the time of the accident Gledhi......
-
Smith v. Clute
...Elkins v. Foster, Tex.Civ.App., 101 S.W.2d 294); where the parties were coemployees going to work or business coadventurers (Bree v. Lamb, 120 Conn. 1, 178 A. 919;Chumley v. Anderton, 20 Tenn.App. 621, 103 S.W.2d 331); and where the plaintiff was otherwise assisting the defendant (Sumner v.......
-
Sullivan v. Davis
...supplied.] Hasbrook v. Wingate, 152 Ohio St. 50, 87 N.E.2d 87, 10 A.L.R.2d 1342. To the same effect are the following cases: Bree v. Lamb, 120 Conn. 1, 178 A. 919; Sigel v. Gordon, 117 Conn. 271, 167 A. 719, Leonard v. Stone, supra; Thuente v. Hart Motors, supra; Monison v. McCoy, 266 Mich.......