Goetsch v. Matheson, 48573
Decision Date | 12 January 1955 |
Docket Number | No. 48573,48573 |
Citation | 68 N.W.2d 77,246 Iowa 800 |
Parties | Harold E. GOETSCH, a minor, by Grace J. Goetsch, his mother and next friend, Appellant, v. Carl B. MATHESON and Leonard Matheson, Appellees. Grace J. GOETSCH, Appellant, v. Carl B. MATHESON and Leonard Matheson, Appellees. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Burt & Prichard, Emmetsburg, for appellants.
Kelly, Spies & Culver, Emmetsburg, for appellees.
The sole question here is the sufficiency of the evidence of recklessness to create a jury question. The Record is commendably condensed to present that problem.
Harold E. Goetsch (17) the injured guest was, on August 28, 1952, riding in a car driven by his friend, defendant Leonard Matheson, and owned by Leonard's father, defendant Carl B. Matheson. The guest relationship and owner's consent to use of the car are unquestioned.
All parties lived at Ringsted, Iowa. Harold testifies he and Leonard met at the theater and were going 'after our dates.' He says:
About three miles south of town they turned west on a gravel road. About a mile west of where they turned the road ends by T-intersection with a north and south road--referred to somewhat inaccurately throughout the Record as a 'dead end.'
Harold had lived in Ringsted about sixteen years. Leonard had lived there only three or four months but prior to moving there had lived 'near Armstrong some ten miles north of Ringsted.' Plaintiffs argue: 'There can be little question that (he) had lived in that vicinity for many years and * * * had been in the area of the accident many times.'
The boys had known each other 'about five years.' Defendant Leonard (as a witness for plaintiffs) says: ; and on cross-examination:
Harold testifies on direct examination:
On redirect he also says:
Defendants offered no testimony. After all parties rested the trial court sustained defendants' motion for directed verdict and plaintiffs appeal.
Plaintiffs argue: (1) That 'defendant driver knew the chances were 50-50 that he was approaching a dead end'; (2) that disregarding such knowledge he continued driving at such speed under existing conditions that an accident could not be avoided if the car was approaching a dead end; and (3) that such conduct presented a jury question on the issue of recklessness.
I. Our statute permits recovery by a guest for damages resulting from 'reckless operation' of the vehicle, in lieu of his former common-law right based on mere negligence. Section 321.494, Code 1950, 1954, I.C.A. Many pages have been written to distinguish between recklessness and negligence. The definition of the word 'reckless' in Siesseger v. Puth, 213 Iowa 164, 182, 239 N.W. 46, 54, has been the starting point of practically every later attempt to put into words the meaning of the statute.
After an exhaustive discussion of the cases the opinion in that case concludes: 'In light of the circumstances under which [the statute] was passed, it is apparent, we think, that the Legislature intended the word 'reckless' therein to mean 'proceeding without heed of or concern for consequences.' To be 'reckless,' one must be more than 'negligent."
It points out that the term may or may not include 'wilfulness' or 'wantonness' but that in any event the conduct must be 'more than negligent' and must indicate "no care, coupled with disregard for consequences."
It is pertinently said in Olson v. Hodges, 236 Iowa 612, 19 N.W.2d 676, 678, that in cases under this statute 'there is no profit in the dissection of precedents.' The opinion in that case, after stating the definition of 'reckless operation' as above quoted from the Siesseger case, says:
We have repeatedly said, expressly or in effect, that the statute requires 'a substantial distinction between negligence and reckless operation' and a recognition that recklessness is negligence 'plus other elements that raise it to the dignity of recklessness.' Shenkle v. Mains, 216 Iowa 1324, 1328, 247 N.W. 635; Brown v. Martin, 216 Iowa 1272, 1277, 248 N.W. 368; Stanbery v. Johnson, 218 Iowa 160, 165, 254 N.W. 303; Harvey v. Clark, 232 Iowa 729, 732, 6 N.W.2d 144, 143 A.L.R. 1141.
We find no case cited by plaintiffs that disagrees with the basic definition stated in the cases cited above.
II. Appellants start with the major premise that 'defendant driver knew the chances were 50-50 that he was approaching a dead-end.' Elaborating, they compare the driver to one who plays the game of Russian Roulette 'where one cartridge is placed in a revolver, the cylinder spun and the gun then placed to the head and the trigger pulled. The player has only one chance in six of being injured.
'If this court would hold the player of Russian Roulette to be reckless, then it certainly is bound to hold the defendant driver in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Vipond v. Jergensen
...resulting from 'reckless operation' of the vehicle, in lieu of his former common-law right based on mere negligence. Goetsch v. Matheson, 246 Iowa 800, 803, 68 N.W.2d 77, 78. Many pages have been written in an effort to distinguish between recklessness and negligence under this statute. Con......
-
Hartman v. Kruse
...which recklessness could be legitimately inferred, * * *.' Wilde v. Griffel, 214 Iowa 1177, 1180, 243 N.W. 159, 160; Goetsch v. Matheson, 246 Iowa 800, 806, 68 N.W.2d 77. However, in order that the action and conduct of the driver of a car can be classified as reckless '* * * it must be suc......
-
Goodman v. Gonse, 48883
...46, 54, and it has been the starting point of practically every later attempt to put into words the meaning of that statute. Goetsch v. Matheson, Iowa, 68 N.W.2d 77; Nesci v. Willey, Iowa, 75 N.W.2d In Olson v. Hodges, 236 Iowa 612, 622, 19 N.W.2d 676, 682, we reviewed previous applications......
-
Tucker v. Heaverlo
...of the T intersection. Lack of knowledge was pleaded in defendant's answer and denied in the plaintiff's reply. In Goetsch v. Matheson, 246 Iowa 800, 805, 68 N.W.2d 77, 80, we had a factual situation virtually similar to the present case. There the driver was approaching a T intersection. T......