Fields v. Synthetic Ropes, Inc.

• Decision Date: 25 April 1966
• Citation: 219 A.2d 374,59 Del. 302
• Parties: , 59 Del. 302 Marylou C. FIELDS, Plaintiff, v. SYNTHETIC ROPES, INC., a corporation of the State of Delaware, Defendant.
• Court: Delaware Superior Court

Page 374

219 A.2d 374

9 Storey 302, 59 Del. 302

Marylou C. FIELDS, Plaintiff, v. SYNTHETIC ROPES, INC., a corporation of the State of Delaware, Defendant.

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County.

April 25, 1966.

Harold Leshem, of Leshem & Rubenstein, Wilmington, and Sheldon Albert, of the office of James E. Beasley, Philadelphia, for plaintiff.

William Prickett, and Roger Sanders, of Prickett & Prickett, of Wilmington, for defendant.

STOREY, Judge.

This is a personal injury action against Synthetic Ropes, Inc., a corporation of the State of Delaware, arising out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on March 14, 1962. The plaintiff, Marylou Fields, was a passenger in an automobile owned by defendant corporation and operated on the date of the accident by her husband, John W. Fields, who was president and a stockholder of the corporation. A brief chronology of events is as follows:

On the evening of the accident, Mr. Fields arrived home in Wilmington, Delaware, at about 6:30 P.M. from defendant corporation's plant at Chester, Pennsylvania. He had planned a sales trip on the following day for defendant corporation. Both he and Mrs. Fields therefore decided to go to dinner and then to proceed to defendant's plant at Chester, where Mrs. Fields was to help her husband ready himself for the ensuing sales trip by making rope samples and by typing an itinerary. She was to receive no compensation for her assistance, nor was she on defendant corporation's payroll. At one time she had acted as secretary to her husband and another employee on a voluntary basis and for no compensation. Subsequently, the Fields adopted a child and her assistance was irregular. She did assist her husband many times prior to the date of the accident with rope samples and typing an itinerary. Between 7:30 and 8:00 P.M., the Fields left their home and proceeded to the Town House Restaurant in Media, Pennsylvania. After dinner, and sometime between 11:00 P.M. and 1:00 A.M., they left the restaurant and drove south on Route 1, planning to use Route 322 to get to defendant's plant. Mr. Fields, however, missed the turn-off and indicated that he would use a road farther south. While so proceeding south, the accident occurred which injured plaintiff wife.

Defendant corporation has moved for a summary judgment and in support of said motion submits that Delaware's guest statute, 21 Del.C. § 6101(a), bars plaintiff's cause of action because at the time of the accident, she was a guest in defendant's automobile within the purview of said statute. In short, defendant argues that plaintiff intended or did no more than any other helpful wife would have done under similar circumstances. No benefit, be it payment or otherwise, flowed to the defendant corporation or to its employee and operator of the motor vehicle, her husband. Thus, as a matter of law, defendant contends the guest statute applies and bars plaintiff's recovery.

The guest statute reads as follows (6101(a)):

'(a) No person transported by the owner or operator of a motor vehicle, boat, airplane or other vehicle as his guest without payment for such transportation shall have a cause of action for damages against such owner or operator for injury, death or loss, in case of accident, unless such accident was intentional on the part of such owner or operator, or was caused by his wilful or wanton disregard of the rights of others.'

The purpose of the guest statute is to protect one who generously, without accruing benefit, has transported another in his motor vehicle. Engle v. Poland, 8 Terry 365, 91 A.2d 326 (1952); Colombo v. Sech, 2 Storey 575, 163 A.2d 270 (1960). It was not intended by the legislature to deny a right of action for injury suffered through the negligence of the owner or operator of an automobile by one who is being transported for the benefit of the owner or operator or for the benefit of both the passenger and the owner or operator. Robb v. Ramey Associates, Inc., 1 Terry 520, 14 A.2d 394 (1940), (Citing Kruy v. Smith, et ux., 108 Conn. 628, 144 A. 304 (1929).)

One who rides in an automobile driven by another merely for his own business or pleasure, without making any return or conferring any benefit upon the driver, is a guest within the statute. Benefit to the driver is the crucial factor in determining whether a passenger in any given circumstances is a guest within the scope of the statute. The guest statute is not applicable where the transportation is provided solely for the driver's benefit or for the benefit of both passenger and driver. Dunn v. Stumbers, 4 Storey 102, 174 A.2d 567 (1961).

It is the settled law in Delaware that 'payment' under the guest statute need not be cash and is not an indispensable requisite to constitute one a passenger. Elliott v. Camper, 8 W.W.Harr. 504, 194 A. 130 (1937); Robb v. Ramey Associates, Inc., supra; Wilkes v. Melice, 9 Terry 206, 100 A.2d 742 (1953); Dunn v. Stumbers, supra; Truitt v. Gaines, D.C., 199 F.Supp. 143, 318 F.2d 461 (Third Circuit, 1963).

In Robb v. Ramey Associates, Inc., supra, defendant, whose business it was to sell burial lots in a certain cemetery, was transporting plaintiff to a cemetery to induce plaintiff to buy a burial lot. The Court, holding the guest statute inapplicable, stated that the relationship discussed was not that of mere friendship, nor was it the social one of hospitality, and at least the trip was for the mutual benefit of both plaintiff and defendant.

In Dunn v. Stumbers, supra, the Court, in denying summary judgment to a defendant restaurant manager who at the time of the automobile accident had been transporting a waitress employed at the restaurant to work because she had no other means of transportation that day, held that it was a fact question as to whether defendant manager expected to derive some benefit from transporting the plaintiff waitress and that in the case at bar the jury might find that his action was performed in part at least for his benefit. The defense in the Dunn case contended that the defendant Stumbers was only doing the waitress a 'personal favor' in line with his policy of trying to be helpful to employees in their personal affairs, and also that other waitresses were available and could have substituted for the...