Hale v. Hale

• Decision Date: 26 February 1941
• Docket Number: 18.
• Citation: 13 S.E.2d 221,219 N.C. 191
• Parties: HALE v. HALE.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

13 S.E.2d 221

219 N.C. 191

HALE v. HALE.

No. 18.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

February 26, 1941

Plaintiff the father of the defendant, was, on January 8, 1939, a passenger on the automobile of defendant on a trip into the State of Virginia to visit a relative. At a point between Radford and Christianburg, the automobile, which was being operated by defendant, ran off the road and down a fill. As a result plaintiff sustained certain personal injuries.

Thereafter plaintiff instituted this action to recover damages alleging certain negligent conduct on the part of the defendant in the operation of the car. In the complaint no reference was made to the point of the accident.

Defendant answering, denies negligence and pleads section 2154 (232) Code Supp. 1938, Acts of Virginia General Assembly, 1938, c. 285. Plaintiff filed a reply thereto in which he denies that said statute or the decisions thereunder have any application, "for that plaintiff was not a guest of the defendant, without pay".

The accident is described by plaintiff as follows:

"Approaching the point where the car went off the road there was quite a curve in the road to the left; it is what we call an 'S' curve, and there was a bridge there over a creek, and the road then curves again as it goes on to Christianburg. The car ran off the road on the left-hand side the way it was going, and went down a fill about 25 feet, landing at the bottom. *** He was driving around 40 to 45 miles an hour. He had driven about 25 yards beyond the bridge when the car ran off the road. The road enters that bridge on a slight curve and after you get to the end of it there is a curve. *** I don't know just the exact distance, but I expect it was 150 yards from the point where he entered the curve until the car ran off the fill. *** The road was winding and curving all the way from Fancy Gap to the place of the wreck except for short straight stretches, but I believe the curve we had the accident on is worse than any of the others we had passed that morning. *** The day was clear and the road was dry, *** The first thing I noticed about the movement of the car just before the wreck, it looked like there was some irregularity in the movement of the car. The car was not operating just right. My son, who was driving, got to jerking the steering wheel backward and forward, and the first thing you knew over we went. The direction of the car had to change when he was jerking the steering wheel backward and forward. The jerking of the steering wheel started after the car began to get off its course, and that was the cause of it I reckon. *** After I noticed that something was wrong the car went over pretty soon. I thought my son was a little excited, but except for the excitement he was in complete possession of his faculties as far as I could tell at the time." The defendant testified: "I tried to control the direction of the car after something seemed to go wrong. *** I could not control the car. I don't know whether the front wheels of the car responded to the turning of the steering wheel or not; we just went over".

At the conclusion of the evidence on motion of the defendant, the court entered judgment dismissing the action as of non-suit. Plaintiff excepted and appealed.

Folger & Folger, of Mount Airy, for plaintiff, appellant.

Woltz & Barber, of Mount Airy, for defendant, appellee.

BARNHILL Justice.

Section 2154 (232), Code Supp. 1938, Acts of Virginia General Assembly of 1938, c. 285, provides that a person transported by the owner or operator of a motor vehicle as a guest without pay for such transportation is entitled to recover damages against such owner or operator for injuries to the person or property of such guest resulting from the operation of such vehicle only upon proof that the injury "was caused or resulted from the gross negligence or willful and wanton disregard of the safety of the person or property of the person being so transported on the part of such owner or operator." The statute makes a distinction between the social or invited guest and the commercial or business passenger. The motorist who transports for pay or some other direct benefit is accountable as at common law, while the "host" who transports his "guest without payment for such transportation" is liable only for injuries caused by his gross negligence or wilful or wanton misconduct.

The passenger is "a guest without payment for such transportation" when there is no contractual relationship between the parties under which the passenger was obligated to pay for the transportation and there are no sufficient facts to show that the transportation was contractually for the mutual benefit of both the passenger and the operator. Master v. Horowitz, 262 N.Y. 609, 188 N.E. 86; 95 A.L.R. 1182. It does not include persons who are being transported for the mutual benefit of both the passenger and the operator or owner of the car. However, the extent and nature of the reciprocal advantages which will exclude the passenger are not unlimited but are confined to certain definite relations, such as Master and Servant, and to tangible benefits accruing from the transportation--as in saving time for which he, as master, pays--facilitation of a servant's work, or the like. Kruy v. Smith, 108 Conn. 628, 144 A. 304; Sullivan v. Richardson, 119 Cal.App. 367, 6 P.2d 567; Crawford v. Foster, 110 Cal. 81, 293 P. 841; Master v. Horowitz, supra; Chaplowe v. Powsner, 119 Conn. 188, 175 A. 470, 95 A.L.R. 1177.

The fact that the person who is carried voluntarily pays for the gas and oil and other running expenses of the trip without being under any contractual obligation so to do is insufficient to show that the passenger is not a guest within the meaning of the statute. 4 Blashfield,...