Hall v. Kimball

• Decision Date: 19 February 1959
• Docket Number: 30,J,Nos. 29,s. 29
• Citation: 355 Mich. 333,94 N.W.2d 817
• Parties: Helen HALL, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Ruth KIMBALL, Administratrix of the Estate of George H. Kimball, Jr., deceased, Defendant and Appellant. Robert HALL, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Ruth KIMBALL, Administratrix of the Estate of George H. Kimball, Jr., deceased, Defendant and Appellant. anuary Term.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 817

94 N.W.2d 817

355 Mich. 333

Helen HALL, Plaintiff and Appellee, v.Ruth KIMBALL, Administratrix of the Estate of George H.

Kimball, Jr., deceased, Defendant and Appellant.

Robert HALL, Plaintiff and Appellee, v.Ruth KIMBALL, Administratrix of the Estate of George H.

Kimball, Jr., deceased, Defendant and Appellant.

Nos. 29, 30, January Term.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Feb. 19, 1959.

William J. Eggenberger, Detroit, for George H. Kimball, Jr.

George A. Porter, Detroit, for plaintiff and appellee.

Before the Entire Bench.

KELLY, Justice.

A Wayne county circuit court jury awarded plaintiffHelen Hall $5,000 and her husband $1,400, and answered 'No' to the special question: 'Was plaintiffHelen Hall a guest passenger in the car of defendantGeorge H. Kimball, Jr., at the time of the accident?'The trial court denied defendant's motion for judgment non obstante veredicto and entered judgments.Defendant appeals, contending that the court erred in submitting to the jury the question as to whether plaintiffHelen Hall was a guest passenger and, also, the question of defendant's negligence.

The cases were consolidated at time of trial and on this appeal.We shall refer to plaintiffs in the singular throughout this opinion.Defendant Kimball died after trial of the cases and his administratrix is continuing the appeal.

QuestionNo. 1: was plaintiff a guest passenger or a passenger for hire?

The record does not sustain gross negligence necessary for plaintiff to recover as a guest passenger.

Appellant contends that the proof discloses: Plaintiff was a gratuitous guest passenger; his (defendant's ) wife was plaintiff's aunt and plaintiff was injured as she was riding with him to the hospital to visit his wife; plaintiff was under no compulsion to accompany him and could have stayed at home had she so desired; that there was no agreement, understanding or discussion as to plaintiff's passenger status; there was a close family relationship that existed between plaintiff and defendant and defendant's wife and that there was 'not a word about payment in any shape or form either tangible or intangible'; defendant did not need any help from plaintiff in driving and there was no contract of any kind.

Plaintiff insists the proof establishes: Defendant was a small, frail man, 72 years of age, who did not like to drive alone or in heavy traffic, and who was greatly disturbed by his wife's illness; plaintiff did not want to make the trip with defendant to the hospital because she not only had a dinner guest at her home, but would have to leave her sick, bedfast, mother, her husband and her children; the first 2 times defendant called her on the telephone in the afternoon, before the evening accident, she refused him and it was only because he'asked,''urged,' and 'insisted' that she accompanied him on the 10-mile trip to the hospital; it was a detriment, sacrifice and inconvenience to her to accompany defendant.

In Hunter v. Baldwin, 268 Mich. 106, 255 N.W. 431, we held that not everyone riding in a motor vehicle without payment is a guest; plaintiff who cranked automobile at request of operator before re-entering car after absence of several hours, hled not a guest so as to relieve owner of car from liability for plaintiff's injuries suffered when car ran over him.

...