Haller v. Gross, 17995
| Decision Date | 08 April 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 17995,17995 |
| Citation | 309 P.2d 598,135 Colo. 218 |
| Parties | Clarence Dean HALLER and J. P. Haller, Plaintiff in Error, v. Mary Ellen GROSS, by her brother and next friend, Russell A. Gross, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Wood & Ris, William K. Ris, Denver, for plaintiffs in error.
H. W. Seaman, Conrad L. Ball, Loveland, for defendant in error.
This action arises under and is based upon the so-called guest statute, being C.R.S. '53, 13-9-1. Defendant in error, a minor 19 years old, obtained a judgment in the sum of $6,492, with interest and costs, against plaintiffs in error, as driver and owner of an automobile in which she was riding as a guest.
Plaintiff in error J. P. Haller, as defendant, was not involved other than as owner of the automobile; he gave his son Clarence, the other defendant, permission to drive the car on the occasion of an accident. The accident occurred about midnight November 9, 1954, on a city street in Boulder, Colorado.
The Gross and the Haller families were friendly neighbors and residents of Estes Park. Mary Ellen Gross, plaintiff, was a visitor at the home or her brother and on the evening of the accident, the Gross family were entertained at dinner at the Haller residence. One James McGraw came to the Haller residence for the purpose of joining plaintiff and Clarence Haller in a trip to Denver for dancing at the Rainbow Ballroom. Upon arrival at the ballroom they found it closed; thereupon, they drove to a tavern located about three blocks west, arriving there about 10:00 o'clock p. m. Before dinner at the Haller residence, Clarence and plaintiff had a whiskey highball, and Clarence had a bottle of whiskey in the automobile which contained two or three cups of whiskey. This was known to plaintiff when she got into the automobile and before leaving Estes Park.
While on the way from Estes Park to Lyons, plaintiff and Clarence each had a drink from the bottle; they stopped at a tavern in Lyons and McGraw and Clarence each had a drink; after leaving the tavern, and on the road to Boulder, plaintiff and Clarence each had one or two drinks. When they finally arrived at the tavern in Denver, plaintiff and Clarence finished the contents of the bottle in the car; then each had a scotch and water; they then ordered double drinks; and Clarence and McGraw each had four or five drinks each while plaintiff testified that she only had about three drinks.
After leaving the tavern in Denver they started for Boulder; McGraw was the driver until they were within a quarter of a mile of Boulder, when Clarence took the wheel and drove until an electric light pole obstructed their way, and in the resulting collision plaintiff was injured. Plaintiff admitted all that has been related concerning the drinking party and stated that she was intoxicated at the time of the accident and during that intoxication she had asked for permission to drive while they were on the toll road. She conceded that Clarence was intoxicated when they left the tavern in Denver, and was intoxicated all of the way until the accident. McGraw was charged with drunkenness by the police and pleaded guilty. Apparently the only protest plaintiff made to the driver was concerning the speed. She made no complaint at the toll gate where they had to stop; neither did she request or attempt to leave the car. She had an opportunity to leave the car at a stop signal in Boulder.
At the conclusion of plaintiff's case, counsel for defendants moved for a directed verdict, claiming that as a matter of law p...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dallison v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 6979.
...a defense to the Plaintiff's action for breach of Implied Warranty." 4 Behr v. McCoy, 138 Colo. 137, 330 P.2d 535; Haller v. Gross, 135 Colo. 218, 309 P.2d 598; Maloney v. Jussel, 125 Colo. 125, 241 P.2d 862; Neilson v. Bowles, 124 Colo. 274, 236 P.2d 286. 5 Bahlman v. Hudson Motor Car Co.,......
-
Coffman v. Godsoe
...513, 167 P.2d 954; Ling v. Pease, 123 Colo. 518, 232 P.2d 189; Murrow v. Whiteley, 125 Colo. 392, 244 P.2d 657. See also Haller v. Gross, 135 Colo. 218, 309 P.2d 598, also cited and quoted with approval in the Green These decisions recognize, implicitly at least, the principle that the rela......
-
Joseph Salvador Uddo, a Minor, by His Guardian Ad Litem, Salvador J. Uddo, Plaintiff and Respondent v. Percy Edwin Parker and Southern Callfornia Edison Company, a Corporation, Defendants and Appellants
...89 Ga.App. 749, 81 S.E.2d 319; Biddle v. Mazzocco, 204 Or. 547, 284 P.2d 364; Simmons v. Holm, 229 Or. 373, 367 P.2d 368; Haller v. Gross, 135 Colo. 218, 309 P.2d 598; Hill Transp. Co. v. Everett, 1 Civ., 145 F.2d 746; Nelson v. Carriere (La.App.) 68 So.2d Appellants point to three new deci......
-
Green v. Jones
...driver. * * *.' Kathy was neither 'guest,' 'hitchhiker' or 'bum' and was incapable of assuming any risks or hazards. In Haller v. Gross, 135 Colo. 218, 309 P.2d 598, 600, this court 'Plaintiff, while legally a minor, was 19 years old and possessed of the usual and ordinary faculties of an a......