Desch v. Reeves
| Decision Date | 25 June 1958 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. C-20-WS-57,C-83-WS-57. |
| Parties | Ruth M. DESCH, Plaintiff, v. Elmer REEVES, Defendant. Ruth M. DESCH, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE TRANSPORTERS ASSOCIATION, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina |
Schoch & Schoch, High Point, N. C., and Tom P. Monteverde, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.
Ratcliff, Vaughn, Hudson, Ferrell & Carter, Winston-Salem, N. C., for defendants.
On January 28, 1955, the plaintiff was injured while riding as a guest passenger in a 1951 Model Nash sedan automobile owned by the defendant, National Automobile Transporters Association, and being driven and operated by the defendant, Elmer Reeves, on Routes 62 and 3 near the northern boundary of the city limits of Jeffersonville, Indiana. The plaintiff, a citizen and resident of the State of Pennsylvania, thereafter instituted suit against the defendant, National Automobile Transporters Association, a Michigan corporation, in the Eastern District of Michigan, and an action against the defendant, Elmer Reeves, a citizen and resident of the State of North Carolina, in the Middle District of North Carolina. In both actions the plaintiff seeks the recovery of $25,000 for the injuries sustained in said accident, and the complaints in each action are couched in almost identical language. Upon motion of the parties, the suit against National Automobile Transporters Association was later transferred from the Eastern District of Michigan to the Middle District of North Carolina for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.
On May 7, 1958, the actions, consolidated for trial by consent, came on for trial before the court without a jury. At the conclusion of the trial, the Court took the cases under advisement pending receipt of briefs from the parties in support of their contentions. The briefs of the parties having been received, the Court, after considering the pleadings, evidence, and briefs of the parties, now makes and files herein its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, separately stated:
Findings of Fact
1. The plaintiff, Ruth M. Desch, is a citizen and resident of the State of Pennsylvania. The defendant, Elmer Reeves, was a citizen and resident of the State of North Carolina at the time the action against him was instituted, and the defendant, National Automobile Transporters Association, was and is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Michigan. The amount in controversy in each of the actions, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds the sum of $3,000.
2. On January 28, 1955, the plaintiff was a guest passenger, being transported without payment therefor, in a 1951 Model Nash sedan automobile owned by the defendant, National Automobile Transporters Association, and being driven and operated by the defendant, Elmer Reeves.
3. At the time of the accident referred to, the defendant, Elmer Reeves, was an agent and employee of the defendant, National Automobile Transporters Association, and at all times was acting within the scope of his agency and employment.
4. The accident happened on Routes 62 and 3 near the northern boundary of the City of Jeffersonville, in the State of Indiana, in a sparsely developed area. At the time of the accident the automobile driven by Elmer Reeves had completely passed through the business district of Jeffersonville, Indiana. The accident happened in a zone marked as a 35-mile per hour speed zone.
5. The defendant, Elmer Reeves, was Director of the Accident Prevention Division of the defendant, National Automobile Transporters Association. The defendant Reeves, with the plaintiff as his passenger, left the plaintiff's home in Columbia, Pennsylvania, on January 23, 1955, enroute to Tuscaloosa, Alabama, where the defendant Reeves was to participate in a fleet supervisors' training court. The plaintiff was a friend of the defendant Reeves and was not an employee of the defendant, National Automobile Transporters Association, and had nothing to do with the business of said defendant.
6. The defendant Reeves left Tuscaloosa, Alabama, driving the Nash automobile, with the plaintiff as his nonpaying guest passenger, on the morning of January 27, 1955, with his destination as Detroit, Michigan. The plaintiff and the defendant Reeves arrived in Bowling Green, Kentucky, on the evening of January 27, 1955, and left Bowling Green, Kentucky, on the morning of January 28, 1955. The plaintiff was to board a train at Fort Wayne, Indiana, and the defendant was to proceed to his home at Detroit, Michigan. The accident occurred prior to their reaching Fort Wayne, Indiana.
7. Highways 62 and 3 run in a general north-south direction at the point of the accident. The accident occurred on a straight stretch of road. The highway was a four-lane highway with two lanes for traffic proceeding in each direction and a median strip separating the two northbound lanes from the two southbound lanes.
8. The accident happened at about 12:15 o'clock P.M. The weather was clear and the surface of the road was dry.
9. As the defendant Reeves was proceeding northwardly along the highway at a speed of from 30 to 35 miles per hour he approached other northbound traffic ahead of him in the right-hand lane where he was traveling. Thereupon, said defendant drove into the passing lane, or left-hand lane for northbound traffic, preparatory to passing the slower moving traffic.
10. Shortly after turning into the passing lane, or left-hand lane for northbound traffic, the defendant Reeves observed a truck loaded with automobiles coming from the opposite direction and proceeding southwardly in the passing lane for southbound traffic, approximately 200 to 300 feet ahead of him.
11. As a part of his official duties, the defendant Reeves was required to check certain transportation equipment on the highway for speed and safety and determine whether or not loads were properly chained. In the execution of this work, it was necessary for said defendant to take his eyes off the highway upon which he was traveling in order to observe other vehicles.
12. After first seeing said car-carrying unit or truck proceeding southwardly, the defendant Reeves observed the same continuously until it was parallel with his own vehicle. The purpose of this observation was to ascertain the name on the side of the equipment so as to identify it, and to determine whether or not the automobiles it was carrying were properly chained. At the time the defendant Reeves looked to his left and observed the car-carrying unit or truck he was meeting, he saw nothing ahead of him in the lane of travel in which he was proceeding.
13. Some two or three seconds after Reeves looked to his left, his automobile collided with the rear of a panel truck. Reeves did not see the panel truck prior to the accident and did not know where it came from or how it got into his lane of traffic.
14. Prior to the collision, the panel truck had stopped in the passing lane for northbound traffic for a short period of time. The driver was waiting for southbound traffic to clear so that he could cross the southbound lanes of travel. The operator of the panel truck stated that he had traveled northwardly on Highways 62 and 3 in the left lane for northbound traffic for approximately three-fourths of a mile prior to reaching the intersection where the accident occurred. He estimated that he had been in a stopped position some 15 seconds to a minute at the time the accident occurred.
15. At the time of the collision, the panel truck was sitting at a slight angle with a part of the truck in the island or median strip between the northbound and southbound lanes of travel and a part of the truck in the northbound passing lane.
16. At the time of and immediately prior to the accident, the plaintiff was reading a newspaper and by reason of this testified at the time of the trial that she had no knowledge as to how the accident occurred. She had been on a long trip with the defendant Reeves and was thoroughly familiar with the nature of his work and the fact that a part of his routine duties was to check, while his own vehicle was in motion, other vehicles on the highway.
17. As a result of the collision, the plaintiff sustained certain personal injuries, medical expenses, and other damages.
Since this is a diversity suit and the accident happened in the State of Indiana, the substantive law of that state governs the rights and liabilities of the parties to these actions. Rayfield v. Lawrence, 4 Cir., 1958, 253 F.2d 209.
At the time of the accident there was in force in the State of Indiana a so-called "guest" statute,1 and the conduct of the defendants must be measured by the construction placed upon this statute by ...
To continue reading
Request your trial