Dobbs v. Sugioka, 15668.

• Citation: 185 P.2d 784,117 Colo. 218
• Decision Date: 06 October 1947
• Docket Number: 15668.
• Parties: DOBBS v. SUGIOKA.
• Court: Supreme Court of Colorado

185 P.2d 784

117 Colo. 218

DOBBS v. SUGIOKA.

No. 15668.

Supreme Court of Colorado, in Department.

October 6, 1947

Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Harold H Davies, Judge.

Action by Gertrude Sugioka against C.C. Dobbs to recover for injuries sustained by the plaintiff while riding in defendant's automobile. To review a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant brings error.

Judgment affirmed.

Where facts relating to question whether plaintiff was a guest within meaning of Wyoming automobile guest statute were not in dispute, defendant's tendered instruction submitting to jury the statute and the question whether plaintiff was a guest was properly refused. Rev.St.Wyo.1931, § 72-701.

Bancroft, Blood & Laws and Arthur H. Laws, all of Denver, for plaintiff in error.

John E Fitzpatrick, Mary Seach, and Glen A. Laughlin, all of Denver for defendant in error.

BURKE Chief Justice.

These parties appeared in reverse order in the tiral court and are hereinafter referred to as there. They were traveling by automobile and an accident occurred in which plaintiff was injured. Charging her injuries to the negligence of defendant she obtained a verdict and judgment for $3000, to review which defendant prosecutes error. Two of his specifications amount merely to an assertion that the judgment is unsupported by the evidence and the other three go to refused instructions.

The accident in question occurred in Wyoming and defendant contends that plaintiff's action is barred by the Wyoming 'Guest Statute,' Sec. 72-701, Wyo.Rev.Statutes, 1931, which, so far as applicable here, is almost identical with our own, i. e., Sec. 371, chap. 16, C.S.A. '35. He says that plaintiff was 'guest' as that term is used therein; she says she was not. Such is the crucial question presented.

Both parties were in the joint employ of several missionary societies, hereinafter referred to as The 'Plan.' As such it was their duty to attend and report certain conferences. Defendant was executive secretary in the Denver office and plaintiff was his secretary and stenographer. One of the conferences referred to was to be conducted at Casper, Wyoming. They were en route there in defendant's automobile and the expenses of the trip were paid by him from funds furnished by the Plan.

Under provisions of the statute here applicable plaintiff could not recover if she was being transported 'as his guest without payment for such transportation,' unless he was guilty of gross negligence which caused the accident and contributed to the injury. Since there is no evidence that defendant's negligence, if any, was gross, we must first determine if plaintiff was his guest and, there being no serious dispute as to the facts, the question is one of law, i. e.: Was plaintiff, under the circumstances, within the legal definition of the term 'guest' as used in the statute? The nearest applicable definition of Webster is one 'entertained without pay,' 'a person to whom hospitality * * * is extended.' The requisite legal definition need not be identical. It will help to bear in mind the purpose of these guest statutes. Clearly they were enacted to prevent recovery by those who had no moral right to recompense, those carried for their own convenience, for their own business or pleasure, those invited by the operator as a mere generous gesture, 'hitch-hikers' and 'bums' who sought to make profit out of soft hearted and unfortunate motorists. Prior to the passage of these acts court dockets were cluttered with such suits. That plaintiff could not be classified with any of these, witness the facts: The parties were both employed by the same principal, in the same office, interested in the same activity and on an obligatory mission. Defendant was permitted, but not compelled, to furnish the transportation. He testifies: 'I was furnishing the transportation in my car. The pay was to come, as it always does, from the overhead expense of the conference. * * * If they (other employes of the Plan were in the car) did not come in my car, then I would pay them.'

'The relationship of host and guest does not exist between the operator of an automobile and an occupant of that automobile if the occupant is being carried for the benefit or in the business of the operator, or for the benefit or in the business of the operator's principal.' Hart v. Hogan, 173 Wash. 598, 24 P.2d 99, 102.

Under somewhat similar circumstances we said:

'These two boys, in conformity to the desire of each, took a particular car for a particular trip and shared between them the duty of driver.'

'If there is such a thing as a joint enterprise in relation to the

...