Dibble v. Harper's Estate
| Decision Date | 06 September 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 9,June Term, 1940.,9 |
| Parties | DIBBLE v. HARPER'S ESTATE. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Samuel L. Dibble against the estate of Thomas M. Harper, deceased, for injuries sustained while riding as a guest in deceased's automobile. From a judgment for the defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; John Simpson, Judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Alexander, McCaslin & Cholette, by E. Dean Alexander, all of Detroit, for plaintiff and appellant.
Vandeveer & Haggerty, of Detroit, for defendant and appellee.
The question presented by this appeal is whether the trial court correctly ruled as a matter of law that plaintiff was transported by Thomas M. Harper, deceased, ‘as his guest without payment for such transportation’ and that plaintiff was not entitled to recovery for damages because of the guest act. 1 C.L.1929, § 4648, Stat.Ann.§ 9.1446; Naudzius v. Lahr, 253 Mich. 216, 234 N.W. 581, 74 A.L.R. 1189.
Mr. and Mrs. Dibble were close friends of Mr. and Mrs. Harper for several years. They were members of a social club which gathered together about every month at the home of some member, and they attended other social functions together. A few days before the accident which gives rise to this litigation, it appears that the Dibbles' son had two tickets to a football game for the following Saturday which he would he unable to use, and he gave them to his parents. Mrs. Dibble declined to attend because of inclement weather. Mr. Dibble invited Mr. Harper to accompany him, but it appears that the latter was reluctant to accept the invitation because he had to drive from Detroit to Sebewaing, Michigan, to obtain a signature to a contract in connection with his business. However, he accepted the invitation when Mr. Dibble offered to help with the driving on Sunday, for Mr. Harper had been driving all week and was very tired. On Saturday night the Harpers and the Dibbles had dinner together and then played cards. On Sunday morning the two couples started out for the trip. Mr. Harper drove. They traveled only a few miles when an accident occurred which resulted in fatal injuries to Mr. Harper and serious injuries to plaintiff. It is conceded that there is nothing in the record to impose liability on Harper's estate if plaintiff were only a guest. The question is whether plaintiff's purpose in accompanying Mr. Harper, to assist in driving, takes the situation out of the limitation of liability of the guest act.
Challenging the direction of a verdict for the estate, plaintiff argues that he was present only to render a service requested by Mr. Harper, and that the social and pleasure aspects of the trip were absent. Considering the evidence as a whole, the argument transcends reality. Plaintiff's offer to help with the driving on a Sunday cannot be deemed ‘payment’ for the transportation within the meaning of the statute. Friendship and sociability are yet the keynotes of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rehm v. Interstate Motor Freight System
...267 Mich. 540, 255 N.W. 328; McKernan v. Detroit Citizens' Street Ry. Co., 138 Mich. 519, 101 N.W. 812, 68 L.R.A. 347; In re Harper's Estate, 294 Mich. 453, 293 N.W. 715; Konopka v. Jackson County Road Commission, 270 Mich. 174, 258 N.W. 429, 97 A.L.R. Appellant urges that the imputed negli......
-
Bushouse v. Brom
...remains the joint social one of reciprocal hospitality or pleasure.’ In passing upon the same phase of the law in Dibble v. Harper's Estate, 294 Mich. 453, 293 N.W. 715, 716, we said: ‘The offer [of plaintiff to defendant] to help drive was not intended as a reward for the ride. * * * The p......
-
White v. King
...cited. Nor does the sharing of driving by a guest passenger alter his legal status to that of a passenger for hire. In re Harper's Estate, 294 Mich. 453, 293 N.W. 715 (1940). The cases relied upon by the appellants, in our opinion, do not bring them within the passenger-for-hire status unde......
-
Welty's Estate v. Wolf's Estate
...casual that sociability is the dominant element', Bond v. Sharp, supra [325 Mich. 460, 39 N.W.2d 39], characterizing In re Harper's Estate, 294 Mich. 453, 293 N.W. 715; Guiney v. Osborn, 295 Mich. 559, 295 N.W. 264, and Brody v. Harris, 308 Mich. 234, 13 N.W.2d 273, 155 A.L.R. 573. Neither ......