Farthing v. Hepinstall, No. 114.

CourtSupreme Court of Michigan
Writing for the CourtMcDONALD
Citation220 N.W. 708,243 Mich. 380
PartiesFARTHING v. HEPINSTALL.
Decision Date24 July 1928
Docket NumberNo. 114.

243 Mich. 380
220 N.W. 708

FARTHING
v.
HEPINSTALL.

No. 114.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

July 24, 1928.


Error to Circuit Court, Saginaw County; William H. Martin, Judge.

Action by Ora S. Farthing against Elbertina S. Hepinstall. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

[220 N.W. 708]

Beach & Beach, of Saginaw, for appellant.

A. Elwood Snow, of Saginaw, for appellee.


McDONALD, J.

This suit was brought to recover damages for personal injuries received in an automobile accident. The defendant reviews by writ of error a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.

The plaintiff is the defendant's daughter. With her brothers, Thayer Hepinstall and Ralph Hepinstall, and others, she lived in her parents' home in the city of Saginaw, Mich. The defendant owned an automobile. On the evening of the accident, the plaintiff and other members of the family were invited to attend a church fair at Bay City. Thayer and Ralph received permission from the defendant to drive her automobile. The plaintiff claims that she did not desire to go with the party, but was urged to do so by her brothers and her mother. On the way home from Bay City, it is claimed that Ralph, who was driving the car, drove so recklessly that it left the road and turned over in the ditch. The plaintiff was pinned under the car. Her back was broken and she suffered other serious injuries, as a result of which she is permanently paralyzed from the waist down.

At the close of the plaintiff's case, and again at the close of all the proof, the defendant moved for a directed verdict on various grounds, the principal one of which was that, at the time of the accident, the plaintiff and the driver were engaged in a joint enterprise, and that therefore his negligence was imputable to her. The motion was denied, and the question was submitted to the jury. After verdict, the court refused to enter judgment for the defendant non obstante veredicto, and also denied a motion for a new trial.

Aside from error alleged in the exclusion of certain testimony, the only question involved is whether the court erred in refusing to hold as a matter of law that the plaintiff and her brother, Ralph, who was driving the car at the time of the accident, were engaged in a joint enterprise. It is conceded that, if they were so engaged, the plaintiff is chargeable with the driver's negligence and cannot recover in this action.

[220 N.W. 709]

To constitute a joint enterprise between...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 practice notes
  • Bostrom v. Jennings, No. 13.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • December 7, 1949
    ...in Parks v. Pere Marquette Ry. Co., 315 Mich. 38, 23 N.W.2d 196, under facts very similar to those at bar. In Farthing v. Hepinstall, 243 Mich. 380, 220 N.W. 708, 709, we said, ‘The rule of joint enterprise in negligence cases is founded on the law of principal and agent. On no other theory......
  • Bostrom v. Jennings, No. 13
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • December 7, 1949
    ...in Parks v. Pere Marquette Ry. Co., 315 Mich. 38, 23 N.W.2d 196, under facts very similar to those at bar. In Farthing v. Hepinstall, 243 Mich. 380, 220 N.W. 708, 709, we said, 'The rule of joint enterprise in negligence cases is founded on the law of principal and agent. On no other theory......
  • WW Clyde & Co. v. Dyess, No. 2378.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • April 27, 1942
    ...646; Bloom v. Leech, 120 Ohio St. 239, 166 N.E. 137; Kokesh v. Price, 136 Minn. 304 161 N.W. 715, 23 A.L.R. 643; Farthing v. Hepinstall, 243 Mich. 380, 220 N.W. 708; Churchill v. Briggs, 225 Iowa 1187, 282 N.W. 280; Scheuring v. Northern States Power Co., S.D., 294 N.W. 175; Meyers v. South......
  • Hileman v. Indreica, No. 32
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • June 1, 1971
    ...may not be used when the sole purpose in their use is to impeach the credibility of a party's own witness. See Farthing v. Hepinstall, 243 Mich. 380, 220 N.W. 708. But when the purpose of referring to the prior statement is to refresh the memory of a witness or to induce the witness to expl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
35 cases
  • Bostrom v. Jennings, No. 13.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • December 7, 1949
    ...in Parks v. Pere Marquette Ry. Co., 315 Mich. 38, 23 N.W.2d 196, under facts very similar to those at bar. In Farthing v. Hepinstall, 243 Mich. 380, 220 N.W. 708, 709, we said, ‘The rule of joint enterprise in negligence cases is founded on the law of principal and agent. On no other theory......
  • Bostrom v. Jennings, No. 13
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • December 7, 1949
    ...in Parks v. Pere Marquette Ry. Co., 315 Mich. 38, 23 N.W.2d 196, under facts very similar to those at bar. In Farthing v. Hepinstall, 243 Mich. 380, 220 N.W. 708, 709, we said, 'The rule of joint enterprise in negligence cases is founded on the law of principal and agent. On no other theory......
  • WW Clyde & Co. v. Dyess, No. 2378.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • April 27, 1942
    ...646; Bloom v. Leech, 120 Ohio St. 239, 166 N.E. 137; Kokesh v. Price, 136 Minn. 304 161 N.W. 715, 23 A.L.R. 643; Farthing v. Hepinstall, 243 Mich. 380, 220 N.W. 708; Churchill v. Briggs, 225 Iowa 1187, 282 N.W. 280; Scheuring v. Northern States Power Co., S.D., 294 N.W. 175; Meyers v. South......
  • Hileman v. Indreica, No. 32
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • June 1, 1971
    ...may not be used when the sole purpose in their use is to impeach the credibility of a party's own witness. See Farthing v. Hepinstall, 243 Mich. 380, 220 N.W. 708. But when the purpose of referring to the prior statement is to refresh the memory of a witness or to induce the witness to expl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT