Carboneau v. Peterson
| Decision Date | 17 November 1939 |
| Docket Number | 27473. |
| Citation | 95 P.2d 1043,1 Wn.2d 347 |
| Parties | CARBONEAU v. PETERSON. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Action by Kenneth Carboneau against Winfield Peterson to recover damages for injuries sustained while riding in an automobile owned and driven by defendant. From a judgment of dismissal plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; Ralph C. Bell, judge.
Clarence J. Coleman, of Everett, and Vanderveer & Bassett, of Seattle for appellant.
Ballinger, Hutson & Boldt, of Seattle, for respondent.
Plaintiff brought an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by him while riding in an automobile owned and driven by defendant. The action was based on defendant's alleged negligence in operating the car. At the conclusion of plaintiff's case, in a trial Before a jury, the court sustained defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and subsequently entered judgment of dismissal. Plaintiff has appealed.
The determinative question in the case is whether the evidence was sufficient, had it been submitted to the jury, to warrant a finding that the relation between the parties was that of joint adventure, as appellant contends, or whether, on the contrary, the evidence established, as a matter of law, that the relation was one of host and guest, as contended by respondent and as found by the court. Appellant concedes that, if he was respondent's guest, his cause of action must fail because of the statutory bar found in chapter 18, Laws of 1933, p. 145, re-enacted as chapter 189, Laws of 1937, p. 911, § 121 (Rem.Rev.Stat. § 6360-121), commonly referred to as the 'host and guest' statute.
At the time of the events which we are about to relate, appellant, Kenneth Carboneau, respondent, Winfield Peterson, and one Roy Wick, three young men living in Everett, had been intimate friends for several years. On March 27, 1937, respondent purchased a second-hand Ford roadster, and, in the afternoon of that day, drove it to the home of appellant to show it to his two friends. Respondent there expressed an intention to drive the car upon a trial excursion that night, and the three young men then informally agreed that they would go to Seattle and attend a moving-picture show. It appears to have been tacitly understood by them that they would share equally the cost of the gasoline necessary for the trip; this was in accordance with their habit on other occasions when they had used either appellant's car or Wick's car.
On leaving Everett at about 8:00 P. M., they each contributed thirty-five cents to the purchase of five gallons of gasoline. They then proceeded to Seattle where they attended a show, to which each paid his own admission. After the show, they drove around Seattle for about an hour and then had lunch, each paying for his own meal. They then started home and had almost reached the city limits of Everett when the car, being driven by respondent, suddenly ran off the road near a curve and struck a pole. Appellant sustained the injuries for which this action was brought.
Since the question Before us relates to the sufficiency of the evidence, it is proper and necessary to refer to the testimony which appellant offered and on which he relies for a recovery.
Appellant testified, on direct examination, as follows:
On cross-examination, he testified:
'
'
Roy Wick testified on direct examination:
'
On cross-examination, he testified:
'Q. You say that you understood that you were going to chip in something on the gas, is that right? A. Yes.
'Q. But there was no actual discussion, nothing said by Win Peterson asking you, or saying that you should do that, or you saying you would, or anything of that kind until you actually did it, was there? A. Well, I believe we had an understanding that we would do it Before we left.
'Q. Let's get that 'understanding' business straightened out. That is what I am asking you. You don't claim, do you, Mr. Wick, that Win Peterson said anything specifically about that at all, do you? A. Well, I knew we were going to put in gas Before we left Everett.
'The Court: Answer the question. You can answer that by 'yes' or 'no'. A. Yes, sir.
'Q. You claim that he said something about it? A. Yes, sir.
'Q. When did he say it? At the gas station? A. Well, Before we left my house he said we were going to go to the gas station Before we went to Seattle.
'The Court: He said that?
'The Witness: Yes, sir, because there wasn't much gas in the car.
'The Court: Just a minute, did he say that? You have stated here now that 'we were going to go to the gas station Before we went to Seattle because there was not much gas'. Now, did Mr. Peterson say that to you or that in substance?
'The Witness: Yes, sir.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. Bogert
...applied in the application of the guest statute in automobile cases. Riggs v. Roberts, 74 Idaho 473, 264 P.2d 698; Carboneau v. Peterson, 1 Wash.2d 347, 95 P.2d 1043; Pence v. Berry, 13 Wash.2d 564, 125 P.2d 645; Smith v. Williams, 180 Or. 626, 178 P.2d 710, 173 A.L.R. 1220; Hayes v. Brower......
-
Stock v. Fife
...matter" which should not be found "without some definite indication of (the parties') intention" to enter it. Carboneau v. Peterson, 1 Wash.2d 347, 373, 95 P.2d 1043 (1939), quoting Lampe v. Tyrell, 200 Wash. 589, 605, 94 P.2d 193 (1939). See Cardullo v. Landau, 329 Mass. 5, 8, 105 N.E.2d 8......
-
Duncan v. Hutchinson
...559, 295 N.W. 264; Bushouse v. Brom, 297 Mich. 616, 298 N.W. 303; Eubanks v. Kielsmeier, 171 Wash. 484, 18 P.2d 48; Carboneau v. Peterson, 1 Wash.2d 347, 95 P.2d 1043; Hale v. Hale, 219 N.C. 191, 13 S.E.2d construing the Virginia statute; McCornack v. Pickerell, 225 Iowa 1076, 283 N.W. 899;......
-
Scholz v. Leuer, 27836.
...decided Before the enactment of the host and guest statute, and invoked the 'intentional accident' test prescribed by the statute in the Carboneau case. In the latter case, it was said that contract, express or implied, is an essential element, in fact the very 'sine qua non' of the relatio......
-
CHAPTER 7 LIABILITIES OF NONOPERATING OIL AND GAS INTEREST OWNERS
...See Taubman, supra note 29, at 644; 2 S. Williston, supra note 29, § 318A, at 567-68. [33] Carboneau v. Peterson, 1 Wash. 2d 347, 375, 95 P.2d 1043, 1055 (1939). See Nichols, supra note 29, at 438-39; 2 S. Williston, supra note 29, § 318A, at 567-68. [34] Suitter v. Thompson, 225 Ore. 614, ......
-
Table of Cases
...175 Wash. 224, 27 P.2d 136 (1933): 22.3(1)(b)(i)Capps v. W. Talc Co., 114 Wash. 94, 194 P. 554 (1921): 17.4(3)(d) Carboneau v. Peterson, 1 Wn.2d 347, 95 P.2d 1043 (1939): 5.6(2) Carnation Lumber & Shingle Co. v. Tolt Land Co., 103 Wash. 633, 175 P. 331 (1918): 16.2(2) Carpenter v. Lent, 185......
-
CHAPTER 1 LIABILITIES OF NONOPERATING INTEREST OWNERS
...See Taubman, supra note 29, at 644; 2 S. Williston, supra note 29, § 318A, at 567-68. [33] Carboneau v. Peterson, 1 Wash. 2d 347, 375, 95 P.2d 1043, 1055 (1939). See Nichols, supra note 29, at 438-39; 2 S. Williston, supra note 29, § 318A, at 567-68. [34] Suitter v. Thompson, 225 Ore. 614, ......
-
Table of Cases
...Dyer, 60 Wash. 603, 111 P. 866 (1910): 27.6 C____________________________________________________________________ Carboneau v. Peterson, 1 Wn.2d 347, 95 P.2d 1043 (1939): 9.4 Casey v. Chapman, 123 Wn. App. 670, 98 P.3d 1246 (2004): 21.3(5) Cederlund v. Cederlund, 7 Wn. App. 320, 499 P.2d 14......